?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Expert comments - Beslan School Hostage Crisis
beslan
beslan
Expert comments
As I’ve said in the top post, I have a YouTube channel (“Beslan Reyndar”) where I post videos related to Beslan. Recently, someone made a comment to one of the videos that went as follows:

FlyerKBOS
Would I not know better I would say "rescue operation" Russian way. As I know better I feel real question is: was it another Putin's false flag operation, or did he merely knew about a plot, let them do it, than gave order to spetsnaz to attack (in order so he can use it in his own cause)?

I felt compelled to respond:
Beslan Reyndar
Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know better. All the things you said are popular myths that the media made you believe.

The following discussion started afterwards. I’m pasting it here because the comments got too long for YouTube (I’m just pasting them as the were at the time when I was writing this post):

FlyerKBOS
Sorry to burst your bubble, I did not get my information from media. Matter of fact I did not even heard them in any media. I lived in communist country for half of my life, seen up close and personal on my own skin Russian (Soviet) methods, mentality and do know and understand them to know better. Information you've got are popular myths invented by psychological warfare fronts of Kremlin, all present on Internet, which spends gazillion dollars and employing maybe as much as millions people, while west does zip to counter balance. But of course, as I am the little ignorant who knows nothing, while you know all, quote your sources, prove me wrong and shine!

Beslan Reyndar
Since you are such an expert, perhaps, you can enlighten me as to what your sources of information are and what conclusions did they bring you to regarding the Beslan events.

FlyerKBOS
+Beslan Reyndar I knew you will reply question with question. Sure! How's about starting from Wikipedia article about Beslan. How about reading about Litvinenko and Politovskaya. Put all three in Google and have your pick: western press articles, blogs of people who knew them, books about them, documentaries, interviews with them. How's about your sources? Moskow's "Pravda" or some Kremlin front Internet nut case conspiratists?

Beslan Reyndar
Did you expect me to get into an argument without knowing what your position is? Sure, I know you think that the Kremlin is to blame but that statement is too general for anyone other than a hardcore Kremlin fan to argue with. While it does appear to be your expectation of me, I am sorry to disappoint you. I'm glad, however, that you disclosed your sources because it gives me a better idea where you stand. Unfortunately, none of these sources are what you would call primary, i.e. the ones that were either present on site, had access to participants of the events or had special qualifications sufficient to consider them as reliable sources. The latter two, moreover, had a clear prejudice against Kremlin as evident from their work or biography. Also, as a Wikipedia editor with five+ years of experience (and a recipient of an "Article of the Year" award for the Russian Wikipedia article on the Beslan attack) I can give a long lecture on the downsides of Wikipedia. One thing you may not know is that Wiki doesn't care about the truth and explicitly says that (type in WP:NPOV). That means that anyone's opinion, true or false, is eligible for inclusion as long as it comes from a source deemed reliable by Wiki standards, which, in itself, is another controversial process. So, whatever you read in Wiki may be a lie, a mistake, a misrepresentation, propaganda or the truth, but you wouldn't know that unless you dug through piles of court transcripts, thousands of photos, hours of video footage, multiple scientific reports; interviewed hostages and went to Beslan to examine the crime scene while it was still there. All these steps require two things: unspeakable stubborness and fluent knowledge of the Russian language. While you may possess the former, I'm not sure if the latter is your strong side. As such, we can engage into a discussion; however, it will likely be futile because we are in different weight categories when it comes to Beslan. Are you sure you want to proceed with a discussion on this? It's ok if you say 'no'. Youtube comments are not the best place to seek the ultimate truth.

FlyerKBOS
Quote: "So, whatever you read in Wiki may be a lie, a mistake, a misrepresentation, propaganda or the truth, but you wouldn't know that unless you dug through piles of court transcripts, thousands of photos, hours of video footage, multiple scientific reports; interviewed hostages and went to...(...)". You know there is a saying. "If you look to close, under microscope, at tree, you might not realize you are in the woods". None of what you mention is needed. You don't have to make fine forensic analysis to facts, to which all sides have officially and publically admitted. What is known: 1) several killed in Beslan terrorists were jailed in Russia for terrorist activities and released prior to attack. 2) Litvinenko and Politovskaya made revelation about it and were both assassinated 3) There is vast amount of witness, evidence and political decisions by volume and weight suggesting it was false flag operation, about which government tries to contain the truth 4) No serious effort was made as to put terrorist into believe government is willing to negotiate (which can be interpreted as: no serious effort was made to assault terrorist with minimum civilian casualties) 5)Tanks, high caliber guns from BTR and vacuum rockets were used to shoot at school, while it was impossible to know how many alive hostages might have been there 6) scene was not rigorously secured and contained by military. Large number of civilians armed with submachine guns were involved in fight. Storm of school was spontaneous rather then calculated move 7) similarly as in Moscow Theatre attack, lack of robust medical help presumably contributed to large number of victims 8) in general: large number of opposition journalists and activists were jailed, beaten and murdered in Russia 9) there is a youth movement in Russia called "Nashi" resembling "Hitler Junger". 10) Bomb was found in Moscow, which was placed there by FSB, to which official FSB explanation is "it was an exercise". The very last case strongly resembles me case of political murder of Polish catholic priest Popieluszko by secret police of Polish communist government in 1980-ties Poland. What makes both cases similar, government who plans clandestine assassination usually doesn't inform street level police force about its plans in order to keep secret. Unaware low rank policeman (which in fact were part of government repressive system) going on instinct of catching bad guy, simply went too far and revealed too much, making it impossible later to persuasively deny the fact of calamity and contain blunder. In spite of fact number of similar terrorist attacks were made in Russia and attributed to Chechen, official explanations such as: Putin didn't even needed it in order to go to war (and similar) sound nothing short of ridiculous. As in case of murder of Popieluszko I strongly believe, mechanism of such operation is never based on direct written or spoken order. Due to criminality of whole operation, highest echelons of government which really stands behind whole operation, relies rather on creating circumstances and system of sending signals, by which secret police officers understand what is wanted and expected out of them without words, rather than giving direct orders. System of signals (as promotions, reattributes, punishments) is characteristic to cold war communist governments, as well very characteristic to Putin. Obvious reason for it is to establish deniability and make it more difficult to prove and prosecute. In case of Popieluszko only small fish were punished, while big players evaded justice. In case of Russian bomb, not even escape goats were singled, which for me only demonstrates arrogance and self confidence of Putin's dictatorship. Look, so now finally that you know and understand all my stand, is it any chance at all we can hear any of your arguments which makes you believe truth is different? Will you present any sources or evidence of yours, or is it just too laughable to even mention it, so all you do will be replying with questions to my questions and commenting on my posts? You did not needed (as you claim) to understand my stand to present your sources. Lets face it, does any sources of yours even exists?

Beslan Reyndar
+FlyerKBOS
You seem to lack an understanding that certain opinions are not the same as facts. Just because an opinion matches your perception doesn’t mean it is true. Basically, you are saying “it is not necessary to study science because people I trust say that the Earth is flat”. After all, if you consider a journalist who made a name for herself by presenting a very one-sided picture of the Chechen conflict and a man who committed treason and was on a payroll of a known criminal oligarch Berezovsky trustworthy, it is a question of your faith and has nothing to do with the truth. Any facts that I’ll present to you that will contradict your view (or should I say Litvinenko’s or Politkovskaya’s views?), you will perceive with nothing but skepticism. Now let’s go over your claims:
1) Yes. So? Does that mean that government purposely let them out so that they could attack Beslan? Do you know anything about the North Caucasus? How the society is structured, what unwritten laws they abide by, how deep the corruption goes? Doubtful. Then you can’t tie the militants release with your conspiracy theory. 2) They made a lot of “revelations”. It is a popular belief that they were killed because of one of them; however, I am yet to see any conclusive proof. Btw, Politkovskaya didn’t write much on Beslan. Her colleague, Milashina, wrote many more “revelations” and she is perfectly fine. Shouldn’t she be dead if we use your logic? 3) A lot of sources that push this theory use misrepresentation, false accusations and blunt lies to instill that perception. You need to know who’s writing, what and why before you simply believe someone. 4) Are you saying there were no negotiations? How did the 26 people get free on September 2nd then? Or did you read excerpts from negotiations, actual transcripts? No, you didn’t because you would know then that terrorists did not come to negotiate. 5)”Vacuum rockets”? What are those? Some secret KGB super-weapon? This is where science comes handy, although you don’t need it because you are perfectly satisfied with some magic “revelations”. If you knew anything about firearms, grenade launchers and tanks, you wouldn’t be making these statements that are simply ridiculous for anyone who knows the operating principles of these weapons. Can you say where did the tank fire and when? Or rather, can you show me a picture of an area destroyed by a tank shell and tell me when that picture was taken? 6) the zone was not properly secured. That is true. The storming was spontaneous, that is true too; however, if we take your view, how could it be spontaneous if you are hinting that the government planned the whole thing? Did they plan on failing? Were the Special Forces told “sorry, no plan to storm, go and die like heroes”. Is that what happened? 7) show me reliable proof saying how many hostages in Beslan died because no proper aid was given to them. 8) how is this relevant here? 9) how is this relevant here? 10) how is this relevant here?

All of my sources except those that I had to keep confidential are listed in my book – “The Beslan Massacre: Myths & Facts”, which is available on Amazon. The preview function should let you see most of them. I highly doubt you’ll care though. You clearly have everything figured out already from reading Wikipedia.


FlyerKBOS
+Beslan Reyndar Look, the very statement:: “You seem to lack an understanding that certain opinions are not the same as facts” is bigotry. Even I am guessing you probably mean this in regard to Litvinenko and Politovskaya, still such a sentence can be readily applied to anything, as beside fact “that you know that you exists” any fact can be called “an opinion”. I could claim the very same of you. Basic difference between you and me lay in perception of trustworthiness of sources. For you Litvinenko might be as traitor. For me he is a Russian patriot acting in interest of his country and countryman, as I believe standing against Putin and his machine is in the vital interest of both. Analogy would be colonel Kuklinski who worked for CIA while being Polish Army officer in Warsaw Pact. Because Poland was occupied by USSR, I don't consider Polish Army than to be “Polish”. He was operating in interest of Poland and Poles though and managed to negotiate change of NATO plans of nuclear attack against Poland in case of WWIII (which would made Poland nuclear wasteland), for his cooperation, while never accepting any money. He also contributed to bringing down a USSR and communism. Many of his communist army buddies consider him a traitor. But than I consider rather them being traitors.
I might not know much of intricacies of Caucasian society (as You correctly suggest), yet I trust Litvinenko knew what he was talking about. What more important, I trust he understood how FSB worked, while I doubt you could match his expertise on subject (unless you are FSB officer yourself), which is more prevalent in answering question (rather than knowing Caucasian society): how releasing terrorists from prison relates to Beslan being false flag operation.
Now on top of all, same opinion was shared by Politevskaya and while he was assassinated by either FSB or GRU, Politovskaya was murdered by “unknown perpetrators”.
See the very fact that he decided to go on campaign against FSB tells me a lot about his character. He certainly did not have to do it. He certainly could become double agent, collect money and lay quiet. Instead he decided to go on public crusade and risk his live.
Also because I grew in Poland in times of “Solidarity” I do know what are the Russian methods of fighting against people like him. Polish secret communist police (KGB front) was always trying to discredit people of public respect and trust. In case of catholic priests they were trying to spread rumors, they had unwed children. Rumors of hooliganism, alcoholism, corruption, anything would do. Anything to appeal to mentality of mob, to suggest low life or character. You see, problem of such approach is, low lifes in general do not risk their lives for a cause. I hope this covers 1)
2) You said Milashana wrote more on Beslan “revelations” than Politavskaya – yet using Google, I could not find any Milashana hard punch articles about Beslan, while I did that of Politavskaya. Would you be able to pass some sources? In the interesting twist of fate, just as you claimed their deaths had nothing to do with Beslan (must be just a coincidence), just yesterday, yet another person who claimed Beslan was false flag (Nemtsov) was just gunned down in Moscow. Putin claims its a provocation. I must say I can't understand the logic of that claim. According two Wiki over 200 journalists (I assume all of them opposition) died in Russia since 1990. Is Putin trying to claim opposition tries to take power from him by,... slaughtering their own ranks in kamikaze like attempt? That would be indeed truly novelty kamikaze strategy, never know in the world before. Kill everybody who think as us and support us! In Poland there is 17 unexplained deaths (suspicious circumstances suicides, accidents or murders), connected to people claiming publicly that crash of Polish president plane in Smolensk was an assassination. In Poland there is even term, every Polish child knows, associated with those deaths - “serial suicide-er” (meaning: someone who makes series of suicides). Number of deaths prompted hundreds of political, media and private figures in Poland to make public statements they are not intending on killing themselves now and in the future. 3) Quote: “A lot of sources that push this theory use misrepresentation, false accusations and blunt lies to instill that perception. You need to know who's writing, what and why before you believe someone”. Who is writing is usually quoted. Why is again matter of perception of trustworthiness. You see: “use misrepresentation, false accusations and blunt lies” I (as well most of westerners) considering synonymous to USSR and Putin in particular. Most importantly what cannot be denied about those claims, making them is definitely very dangerous, while defending Putin is very safe. 4) Quote: “Are you saying there were no negotiations?” - I saying there was no any serious attempt as to put terrorists into believe, that Government seriously wants to negotiate. That's what concern about lives of victims government would do: try to lower their vigilance by giving them hope they may succeed in their demands, weary them down psychologically by intensive talks, than strike when they least expect. That's exactly what US government would do. When negotiating with terrorist you don't wait till they show up in Moscow, but go to them. 5) “Vacuum rockets?” - after reading around my impression was that's how incendiary rockets are called in Russia. Quote: “Can you say where did the tank fire and when? Or rather, can you show me a picture of an area destroyed by a tank shell and tell me when that picture was taken?” How's about when I lurked around western YT sources, all mentioned both tanks (T-72 and BTR) and incendiaries while Wiki mentioned allegations that helicopters were used as well? According to western sources (which investigated themselves, which gives both numerous pictures and witness statements - and which I trust) tanks and incendiaries were used. 6) Quote: “the zone was not properly secured. That is true.” - Yes, and it should have been! Because that's again what government concern about lives of victims would do. If you don't want blood, you take every precaution, secure and contain parameter as a very first step. If you need blood for your own reasons, you take every excuse which can help you get it, than blame it on others (as local government, civilians or ultimately terrorists). “how could it be spontaneous if you are hinting that the government planned the whole thing? “. It feels almost insulting you want me to explain that. Nobody ordered civilians with AKs around to go and shoot, they did it spontaneously, as they heard first explosions and shots. In that sense it was spontaneous. First explosion was initiated to all likelihood by Spetsnaz sniper who killed terrorist on dead man switch (even few other similar theories are plausible as well). In any case civilians should have been disarmed and have no ability to be involved. I imagine there is enough soldiers in Russia to ensure just that. If Russia didn't do it within 3 days time period, it can be only because it did not wanted to. 7) Quote: “show me reliable proof saying how many hostages in Beslan died because no proper aid was given to them” - and fact that there were only few ambulances at the scene (just as in Moscow theater bombing) and common sense is insufficient to know there had to be many? 8 & 9) Quote: “how is this relevant here?” - by showing Putin and his elite has character of brutal oppressive dictatorship which fits character of alleged calamities 10) how is this relevant here? - Are you serious???
Your whole argumentation seems to come down to “presenting evidence” of some sort, which lets face it, since neither me nor you were there is completely futile. No matter what I would show, you are going to dismiss it one way or another.
I remember as Polish IL-62 crashed in Poland in1987, and Polish government disaster commission determined it was Russian manufacturer fault. As soon as they made known their findings, they received 70 page “scientific” Russian document, signed by all imaginable governmental, ministerial top soviet scientists, trying to “prove” all their findings were wrong. It didn't matter that part of exploded engines were recovered over 100 miles from disaster site, they claimed engines damages were result of crash not its cause. If not for the fact that eventually identical plane managed to land safely with identical engine damages, they would claim their ludicrous “scientific” claims forever. Forgive me for saying: Soviet and Russian (at least that of Putin) trustworthiness is so bankrupted, it's more likely I consider earth is flat than, trust Russian government “scientific” evidence. But coming back to original question – why I do believe Beslan was false flag or its variation? There is a concept in American justice system called “circumstantial evidence”. Its derives from science of probability. If I would to take a coin and flip it, probability of getting head or tail is exactly 50%. But what if I would to throw it twice, what would be probability of getting result: head AND head again (head twice in a row). As it turns out because probability of single cast evens ½ you have to multiply ½ by ½ which gives result of ¼ (meaning there is a chance of one in four). Every time argument “AND” is used, “AND” can be replaced with “x” (symbol of multiplication). Hence if I would to take dice throw it twice than wonder what is probability of getting 3 AND 3 again, because probability of getting 3 in single cast is 1/6 it would be 1/6 x 1/6 which equals 1/36 (one chance in 36). Now entire calculus of calculating probability of events which happened in real life in row is way, way more complicated, still basic idea is, if many events occur in a row, combined probability of all of them occurring in the row is substantially higher than that of single event.
To explain: if husband has never been seen murdering his wife, no DNA, finger print or similar evidence was ever found, yet there is massive volume of circumstances which suggest he did it (as for instance he was caught lying to police. Lying does not prove he did it, as innocent people often lie too, yet as it can be assumed, its more probable murderer would lie rather than innocent, fact of catching him lie increases probability he is a murderer), he can be found guilty as certainly as if physical “proof” was found. Casting 6 in single throw of dice have a high probability (high – meaning there is high probability he could not do it, when thinking in terms of convicting someone of murder) . As much as one in six. Yet casting of high probability event 8 times in row: 6 AND 6 AND 6 AND 6 AND 6 AND 6 AND 6 AND 6 again, has combined probability of 1 in 1,679,616. If you have large enough amount of even high probability events, as say ¾ (three chances in four), yet have them occur in conjunction to one another, there combined probability can be as high as that of DNA. To underline again. I know math behind my simplified explanation is fraud, as entire concept is way, way more complicated and less straight forward, yet what I trying to explain, massive amount of circumstantial evidence can amount to same, as physical proof from mathematical stand point.
For this reason, you are right. After researching for a couple of weeks around, reading Wiki articles, watching documentaries, reading blogs about Chechen war, Chechen terrorist attack and relating topics I have made my mind. Amount of evidence of Russian government involvement in Beslan, IMHO is overwhelming. As said before, I don't know (as most people don't) was it planned false flag, or did Putin merely knew about plot, allow it to happen, perhaps influenced response to suit his purpose.
In the interesting twist, I met and spoke in person with colonel Kuklinski, as well knew briefly in my life in US (in ever more interesting twist) in Boston USA, Chechen, with whom I talked for hours about: Chechen war, Chechen terrorist attacks and his perception of Islam – which interested me at the time the most. Whole thing happened before Boston bombing and allowed me to gain valuable first hand inside about Chechnya, Chechen and realities of Russia. I do know numerous Russians in US as well.
I don't hope to persuade you to my view, as it seems you understand (especially with that sort of argumentation), you will not make me to yours. Very fact you question even things like have Litvinenko really died, tells me this is not reasonable discussion. Point of writing reply is – other people who wonder here will be able to read your and mine comments and have opinions of their own. I know also, there will be number of Russian trolls (impersonating westerners) writing utter nonsense, just to create artificial crowd. This is common occurrence nowadays and can be expecyed and researched well by putting “internet Russian Troll” into Google. For thinking person I feel, resorting to such tactics gives lots of inside and lots of to think, about government which is forced to resort to it. I will give a glance at your book (given it is really yours, which I doubt, still arguing is pointless), in a spare time, if its indeed possible to do it for free, simply because I feel its good to know and examine arguments of all sides. I wont buy it, and I hope you forgive me for it, simply because as far as I know, you could be FSB front yourself, and I wouldn't like to sponsor FSB.


Beslan Reyndar
+FlyerKBOS
Your post was very long and I think it would be better to shift this discussion to my blog where I can provide you if photo or video or other evidence if needed. It is located at beslan.livejournal.com. I will create a post where you will be able to reply and will notify you here when it's ready.


So here’s is my promised response. Quotes are italicized, my responses are in a regular font.

+Beslan Reyndar Look, the very statement:: “You seem to lack an understanding that certain opinions are not the same as facts” is bigotry.

How is that bigotry? If we both look at a red box and I say it is green. It is my opinion but it’s wrong from a factual standpoint because the box is actually red. Hence, my opinion is not a fact in this case, right? Where’s the bigotry here?

Even I am guessing you probably mean this in regard to Litvinenko and Politovskaya, still such a sentence can be readily applied to anything, as beside fact “that you know that you exists” any fact can be called “an opinion”.

I’m not sure if I understood your point but I’ll try. That fact that you exist is not the only fact that is unquestionable. There are many others like “water is wet” or “a maple tree grows leaves”. Certain things have been scientifically studied for years. As a result, science has come to a point where certain things like physical properties of a projectile are known for a fact. Just because you don’t know them, it doesn’t make them less of a fact.

I could claim the very same of you. Basic difference between you and me lay in perception of trustworthiness of sources. For you Litvinenko might be as traitor. For me he is a Russian patriot acting in interest of his country and countryman, as I believe standing against Putin and his machine is in the vital interest of both.

No, the basic difference between us is that you are looking for someone to trust and you base your trust on a person’s reputation, political orientation or other characteristics that you find important but which may have nothing to do with the person’s level of competence on a given subject. Once you find someone whose beliefs match yours, you put your trust into them and argue your points citing them as a reliable source. And if you come across a fact that contradicts your belief system, you simply brush it aside labeling it as “Kremlin propaganda” or something of that sort. That’s a flawed approach because it ignores the possibility that your source may be false and that you belief system is prejudiced. If Litvinenko (just as an example) said that Putin is a Martian who eats a child for breakfast every morning, would you believe him? What if Putin went through a physical examination that said that he is perfectly normal human being, would you still believe Litvinenko and label the results as “falsified”?

On the contrary, I search for hard evidence, cross-reference multiple testimonies of participants to the events (not just some journalist who was never around), and employ logic and science to support my conclusions. That is why I would never argue on topics I have no clue about like that Polish plane crash. But in topics that I’m competent in (like Beslan) my knowledge will always beat your opinion.

I might not know much of intricacies of Caucasian society (as You correctly suggest), yet I trust Litvinenko knew what he was talking about. What more important, I trust he understood how FSB worked, while I doubt you could match his expertise on subject (unless you are FSB officer yourself), which is more prevalent in answering question (rather than knowing Caucasian society): how releasing terrorists from prison relates to Beslan being false flag operation.

That’s exactly what I said before. You trust him and, if you do, then you do not perceive anything he says critically. Unfortunately, your unhidden admiration for Litvinenko doesn’t make him more or less right about Beslan. It simply has nothing to do with facts but it does limit your ability to distinguish facts from opinions (or rumors, or lies).

Many criminals are released from prison without proper trial and return to their criminal activities. That is especially true for the Caucasus. Unfortunately, that region suffers from corruption and nepotism, which takes various forms including collective responsibility. Aside from these problems, local law enforcements agencies, at the time, were overwhelmed with the amount of work and could not handle processing and conviction properly leading to releases of many criminals. Beslan terrorists were among them. t was a systemic problem - a consequence of the USSR falling and law enforcement falling apart as well - and there is no indication that this was done on purpose solely for the Beslan attack to occur. Please prove otherwise. I’m sure you have a theory that sounds convincing to you. Don’t forget that I’m looking for a conclusive proof.

Now on top of all, same opinion was shared by Politevskaya and while he was assassinated by either FSB or GRU, Politovskaya was murdered by “unknown perpetrators”.

Why do you think that this is the reason that both of them were assassinated? Do you have the results of an investigation that has conclusive proof or, perhaps, a confession from the killer that explains that this was the reason? I know you don’t so you portray something you read in the newspaper or on the Internet as a fact. But it doesn’t sound very convincing.

See the very fact that he decided to go on campaign against FSB tells me a lot about his character. He certainly did not have to do it. He certainly could become double agent, collect money and lay quiet. Instead he decided to go on public crusade and risk his live.

No, it’s actually more mundane. Litvinenko was getting paid well by Berezovsky, a criminal oligarch who made a fortune in the 1990s, then fled to the UK in 2000s and was trying to battle Putin’s regime from abroad. As such, this is the source that is considered to have a conflict of interest in a topic that we are discussing here and cannot be relied upon.

Also because I grew in Poland in times of “Solidarity” I do know what are the Russian methods of fighting against people like him. Polish secret communist police (KGB front) was always trying to discredit people of public respect and trust. In case of catholic priests they were trying to spread rumors, they had unwed children. Rumors of hooliganism, alcoholism, corruption, anything would do. Anything to appeal to mentality of mob, to suggest low life or character. You see, problem of such approach is, low lifes in general do not risk their lives for a cause. I hope this covers 1)

Discrediting is not just a Russian method. Nixon was discredited by the Watergate scandal. Were Russians to blame for that one too?

2) You said Milashana wrote more on Beslan “revelations” than Politavskaya – yet using Google, I could not find any Milashana hard punch articles about Beslan, while I did that of Politavskaya. Would you be able to pass some sources?

Perhaps it’s because you misspelled the name. Try re-reading my earlier post and enjoy. She is a master manipulator and her perception will definitely match yours. Forgive me for not fetching the sources for you. Her lies were so abundant and so ridiculous at times that I have no interest in sharing her rants at all.

In the interesting twist of fate, just as you claimed their deaths had nothing to do with Beslan (must be just a coincidence), just yesterday, yet another person who claimed Beslan was false flag (Nemtsov) was just gunned down in Moscow. Putin claims its a provocation. I must say I can't understand the logic of that claim.

The logic of that claim is that despite what you may think about Nemtsov from reading western newspapers, for the majority Russians he was nothing but a political corpse, who completely discredited himself as a corrupt, self-centered servant of Yeltsin and Berezovsky. He was forced out of top level politics on the rise of the Putin’s rule and resorted to receiving grants from the US under a pretense of fighting “the Putin’s regime”. For the past 10-12 years he was just another loud mouth on the Internet who posed no threat to Putin whatsoever. Why in the world would Putin need to kill him, especially now and in connection with Nevtsov’s words on Beslan as you claim? Others (his sponsors), however, had many reasons simply because a dead Nemtsov was more useful that alive one. Right now it’s too early to discuss Nemtsov’s death because there is very little factual information available. In the meanwhile, feel free to believe that Putin ordered to kill him next to Kremlin so that he could watch from his office.

According two Wiki over 200 journalists (I assume all of them opposition) died in Russia since 1990. Is Putin trying to claim opposition tries to take power from him by,... slaughtering their own ranks in kamikaze like attempt?

Did Putin come to power in 1990? That’s news to me. And do you suggest that all of them died because they criticized Putin? Well, that’s ambitious. Do I dare to ask for any hard proof of his involvement in every single journalist death or will it be another “I trust that opinion” argument?

That would be indeed truly novelty kamikaze strategy, never know in the world before. Kill everybody who think as us and support us! In Poland there is 17 unexplained deaths (suspicious circumstances suicides, accidents or murders), connected to people claiming publicly that crash of Polish president plane in Smolensk was an assassination. In Poland there is even term, every Polish child knows, associated with those deaths - “serial suicide-er” (meaning: someone who makes series of suicides). Number of deaths prompted hundreds of political, media and private figures in Poland to make public statements they are not intending on killing themselves now and in the future.

I don’t know what’s going on in Poland so I can’t comment. I’m sure though it is convenient to blame Putin.

3) Quote: “A lot of sources that push this theory use misrepresentation, false accusations and blunt lies to instill that perception. You need to know who's writing, what and why before you believe someone”. Who is writing is usually quoted.

“Who” is a more complex question than a name. Journalists don’t appear out of nowhere. They depend on their employer to say certain things, otherwise, they wouldn’t be employed if their articles didn’t align with the general policy of the agency.

Why is again matter of perception of trustworthiness. You see: “use misrepresentation, false accusations and blunt lies” I (as well most of westerners) considering synonymous to USSR and Putin in particular.

Do you have some kind of a document that allows you to speak on behalf of most westerners?

Most importantly what cannot be denied about those claims, making them is definitely very dangerous, while defending Putin is very safe.

I’m sure that’s what the western media wants you to believe because few will actually go out and seek information themselves.

4) Quote: “Are you saying there were no negotiations?” - I saying there was no any serious attempt as to put terrorists into believe, that Government seriously wants to negotiate.

Are you aware of the demand the terrorists made? I’ll help you – they demanded to withdraw Russian troops from Chechnya, which at the time was divided between pro-Russian Chechens (Kadyrov and others) and anti-Russian (Basayev and etc.). Here is another fact that you may not know of – a 1998 Law on Antiterrorism which was passed in response to the 1995 Buddyonovsk hospital siege where the release of the terrorists led to the continuation of the First Chechen War, a bloody interim period, Second Chechen War and, ultimately, Beslan. The 1998 law prohibited negotiating political demands. So there was no way the demands could be fulfilled.

That's what concern about lives of victims government would do: try to lower their vigilance by giving them hope they may succeed in their demands, weary them down psychologically by intensive talks, than strike when they least expect. That's exactly what US government would do. When negotiating with terrorist you don't wait till they show up in Moscow, but go to them.

Please name an analogous terrorist attack on the US soil (1000+ hostages in a building rigged with explosives and guarded by armed trained men). How did the US government handle it? If there wasn’t one (fortunately), your argument is invalid because in theory that’s everyone would try to do what you said. But then there is reality. That’s why you had to have read negotiation transcripts to realize that this was a dead end situation. And it was the terrorists’ goal.

5) “Vacuum rockets?” - after reading around my impression was that's how incendiary rockets are called in Russia.

This is a wrong impression that you got from incompetent journalists that you trust.

How's about when I lurked around western YT sources, all mentioned both tanks (T-72 and BTR) and incendiaries while Wiki mentioned allegations that helicopters were used as well?

I repeat, show me a photograph of a tank firing or damage left by a tank shell.

Show me a picture of a firing helicopter. Then we can talk. Otherwise, I can say that some Polish guy was sitting on a nearby roof with a laser and burned the school.

According to western sources (which investigated themselves, which gives both numerous pictures and witness statements - and which I trust) tanks and incendiaries were used.

I said before and I’ll say again, your trust is worthless in this case, which is something we’ve proven above in case of the “vacuum rockets”. If they had pictures, show them to me. It shouldn’t be difficult, right?

6) Quote: “the zone was not properly secured. That is true.” - Yes, and it should have been! Because that's again what government concern about lives of victims would do. If you don't want blood, you take every precaution, secure and contain parameter as a very first step.

Again, theory vs reality. Do you know how many troops were employed in Beslan? Do you know how many weapons did locals have – legal weapons and illegal? Do you know of a way to control them on such a large territory? It is thousands of men we are talking about. Many with full-auto weapons and, sometimes, drunk. Clearly, you have a recipe for winning this one. Please share.

If you need blood for your own reasons, you take every excuse which can help you get it, than blame it on others (as local government, civilians or ultimately terrorists).
By no means, let’s not blame the terrorists! They were good kind men that kindly executed over twenty people on the first day, forced people to drink their own urine and beat kids with rifle stocks. It is only the bad Russian government that’s to blame for all deaths.

Nobody ordered civilians with AKs around to go and shoot, they did it spontaneously, as they heard first explosions and shots.

So the government is at fault that civilians did not obey any orders or requests?

In that sense it was spontaneous. First explosion was initiated to all likelihood by Spetsnaz sniper who killed terrorist on dead man switch (even few other similar theories are plausible as well).

Do you know the windows in the gym were made from opaque plastic that couldn’t be seen through from the outside? How would a sniper shoot and why would he shoot if that shot could lead to hundreds of victims?

In any case civilians should have been disarmed and have no ability to be involved.
Great idea. I think you should have been there to handle that.

I imagine there is enough soldiers in Russia to ensure just that. If Russia didn't do it within 3 days time period, it can be only because it did not wanted to.
You can imagine anything you want.

7) Quote: “show me reliable proof saying how many hostages in Beslan died because no proper aid was given to them” - and fact that there were only few ambulances at the scene (just as in Moscow theater bombing) and common sense is insufficient to know there had to be many?

Not, unless your common sense is an officially accepted international measure of truth. So far, “your common sense” is not impressive. How many ambulances were on scene in Beslan? How many medical personnel were made available? How many hospital beds were prepared? How much transfusion blood prepared? How were the victims sorted during the evacuation? Please provide responses to these questions and then I’ll consider your “common sense” argument for validity.

8 & 9) Quote: “how is this relevant here?” - by showing Putin and his elite has character of brutal oppressive dictatorship which fits character of alleged calamities 10) how is this relevant here? - Are you serious???

I will not engage in a pointless discussion that has a prejudiced argument as its cornerstone because if your base argument is false, the whole system of beliefs is false.


Your whole argumentation seems to come down to “presenting evidence” of some sort, which lets face it, since neither me nor you were there is completely futile. No matter what I would show, you are going to dismiss it one way or another.


Not true. Show me pictures, videos, official documents, transcripts of interviews/questioning of direct participant in the events. I will cross-reference it against the material I have already and conclude whether these materials are valid legitimate proofs. Unlike you I don’t simply trust some journalist or a defected ex-FSB agent.

I remember as Polish IL-62 crashed in Poland in1987, and Polish government disaster commission determined it was Russian manufacturer fault. As soon as they made known their findings, they received 70 page “scientific” Russian document, signed by all imaginable governmental, ministerial top soviet scientists, trying to “prove” all their findings were wrong. It didn't matter that part of exploded engines were recovered over 100 miles from disaster site, they claimed engines damages were result of crash not its cause. If not for the fact that eventually identical plane managed to land safely with identical engine damages, they would claim their ludicrous “scientific” claims forever. Forgive me for saying: Soviet and Russian (at least that of Putin) trustworthiness is so bankrupted, it's more likely I consider earth is flat than, trust Russian government “scientific” evidence.

Sure, just trust some journalist instead. That’ll work.

But coming back to original question – why I do believe Beslan was false flag or its variation? There is a concept in American justice system called “circumstantial evidence”.

You didn’t have to write pages to explain what circumstantial evidence is.

For this reason, you are right. After researching for a couple of weeks around, reading Wiki articles, watching documentaries, reading blogs about Chechen war, Chechen terrorist attack and relating topics I have made my mind. Amount of evidence of Russian government involvement in Beslan, IMHO is overwhelming. As said before, I don't know (as most people don't) was it planned false flag, or did Putin merely knew about plot, allow it to happen, perhaps influenced response to suit his purpose.

So, how did they do it? Did you reconstruct the chain of events after couple of weeks of reading Wiki? I’m particularly interested in how the storming went on. Plus with so much circumstantial evidence that you are so heavily relying upon wasn’t there anything that was hard evidence? You said they used tanks, helicopters, incendiary weapons, BTRs… wasn’t there a single trace left on a building?

And again, relying on an en-Wiki article – is a brilliant approach for a researcher. Do you recall what I said earlier? Wiki doesn’t care about the truth? But neither seem you as long as Putin is blamed for everything.

I don't hope to persuade you to my view, as it seems you understand (especially with that sort of argumentation), you will not make me to yours.

Of course I won’t convince you. In order to convince you I must be an opposition journalist or a corrupt "regime-fighting" FSB agent, preferably, dead in order to add to the “regime fighting” credibility to my persona. If I reference science, you call it Russian government lies; pictures – will probably be labeled as fake; testimonies – as lies of FSB agents and so on. Good thing Beslan residents didn’t listen to the likes of you and your sources and former hostages set up a museum of the FSB heroes at the new school building right across from the old one and they always bring flowers to the memorial to the Special Forces.

Very fact you question even things like have Litvinenko really died
Where did I question his death? Please show me. I pasted the whole discussion above.

tells me this is not reasonable discussion.

You are correct because you only accept information that does not contradict your poorly constructed system of beliefs.

Point of writing reply is – other people who wonder here will be able to read your and mine comments and have opinions of their own.

Agreed.

I know also, there will be number of Russian trolls (impersonating westerners) writing utter nonsense, just to create artificial crowd.

Don’t worry about them. We’ll keep this one between you and me.

I will give a glance at your book (given it is really yours, which I doubt, still arguing is pointless), in a spare time, if its indeed possible to do it for free, simply because I feel its good to know and examine arguments of all sides. I wont buy it, and I hope you forgive me for it, simply because as far as I know, you could be FSB front yourself, and I wouldn't like to sponsor FSB.

I laughed really hard at this one. The FSB is writing a book because it needs sponsors? That’s hilarious. The only reason I mentioned it is because you asked for sources and that’s where they are gathered in a readable format.

Please don’t buy my book (of course, it’s not mine, actually my whole FSB book-writing department was writing it… lmao). I don’t want you to suffer from reading something that will not fit into your comfortable reality.

Tags:

Leave a comment