The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Charlie Hebdo: Report from Europe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here is a video of the execution of Amedy Coulibaly. It is a German website with the actual live French video of the police assault on the deli. There are three videos. The first one repeatedly shows Coulibaly with tied hands containing no weapons shot downand killed when he could easily have been captured. It is as if the order was to make sure that there is no live suspect whose story might have to be explained away. The first video also repeatedly shows the execution in slow motion. Commentary in French accompanies the video. http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.co.at/2015/01/amedy-coulibaly-wurde-hingerichtet.html

In response to my Charlie Hebdo update http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/16/charlie-hebdo-update-paul-craig-roberts/ European readers report that the situation in Europe is much the same as in the US and UK. The “mainstream” print and TV media parrot the official line and raise no unsettling questions. The independent Internet media is where real information is reported.

The German print and TV media have suffered dramatic declines in readers and viewers. This decline accelerated when Udo Ulkotte’s book about CIA penetration of European media was published by Kopp Verlag and became a best seller. Thinking people no longer trust the German media. The German media has lost the intelligent part of the population and only retains the somnolent sheep.

There are efforts to infiltrate the Internet media. Sites funded by money, such as Salon, appear. These sites attempt to discredit all who raise honest and obvious questions. Readers report that the Huffington Post has lost credibility by its move into “respectability.” Salon, apparently, has no more credibility than Fox News or The Weekly Standard.

The view I get from Europe supports my view. The left-wing, or what little remains of a left, supports the official stories of terrorist attacks, because the stories confirm the left-wing’s emotional need to believe that peoples oppressed by Western colonialism/imperialism are capable and determined and strike back at their oppressors. The left-wing’s sense of justice demands that oppressed and abused peoples don’t just sit there and take it.

The right-wing accepts the official stories for two different reasons. The anti-immigrationists among them use the terror attacks as evidence against immigration. The patriotic right can go along with this, but also responds to writers such as myself, who defend the Constitution against the government, with the argument that it is the government’s job to interpret the Constitution and I should not use the Constitution in order to criticize our government. Much of the American right believes that liberals use the Constitution in order to defend criminals and terrorists, who simply should not be tolerated. In other words, the Constitution is seen not as our defender but as a defender of those the right-wing regards as undesirables, such as criminals, terrorists, abortionists, and homosexuals.

ORDER IT NOW

The rest of the population has simply succumbed to the many years of demonization of Muslims. Indeed, Israel has been demonizing Muslims for 60 years and has created the image of Muslims as terrorists wearing suicide bombs. If a person has been prepared to regard Muslims as terrorists, the official stories simply fit that already prepared compartment in the brain.

Additionally, although false flag attacks are commonplace and have been used throughout history to advance undeclared agendas, the public has been brainwashed to regard them as “conspiracy theories.” Thus, anyone who raises questions is dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist.” Many Americans do not even understand that the official story of 9/11, for example, is a conspiracy theory. So is the official explanation of the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Charlie Hebdo attack. What it boils down to is that official conspiracy theories are accepted as true, but everyone who questions them is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Readers point out that as stupid as governments are, populations are even more stupid and that governments succeed in brainwashing populations. Many conclude that in the absence of an adversarial media, democracy is a sham as the people have no inclination or means of confronting the government.

The hope appears to be that the mainstream media will continue to diminish and will be replaced by the independent Internet media, thus releasing populations from their brainwashed state. Others think that this hope will come to naught as governments will assert control over the Internet and that governments will make dissent the equivalent of terrorism.

Those who try to suppress dissent might be simply defending a personal bias or they might be agents of a cover-up. Regardless, it comes to the same thing in the end. People who raise dissenting points and honest questions are ridiculed or demonized in efforts to silence or marginalize them. Whether or not truth can actually prevail, it doesn’t usually prevail in time. For example, “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction” prevailed over truth. After Iraq is destroyed we learn that the basis for the US invasion of Iraq rested firmly on an orchestrated lie.

The culpability of the Western media in lies, death, and destruction is extreme. Consider the Malaysian airliner that went down in Ukraine. The US, UK, EU, and the puppet government in Kiev blamed Russia and forces of the breakaway eastern province for shooting down the civilian airliner. An investigation was convened. It has been six months since the investigation was completed convened, and the results have not been released.

Clearly, if the investigation supported the Western propaganda, the results would have been released. We can safely conclude that the investigation does not support the West’s propaganda. There has not been one word from the Western media demanding the results of the investigation. The world has forgotten it, but the world remembers the loudly shouted propaganda, and the conclusion, unsupported by any evidence, is that Russia is guilty.

The Western media works the same way when it reports Charlie Hebdo.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Charlie Hebdo, Terrorism 
Hide 25 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Matra says:

    It has been six months since the investigation was completed, and the results have not been released.

    That’s as embarrassing a sentence as anything PCR has ever written.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Ross
  2. Conspiracy logic is weird. So the West and its evil minions, only good nations like the United Socialist…. Er I mean Mother Russia have allies, will lie and kill to their hearts content, but they won’t fake a report to get the results they want. They will just sheepishly slink away without publishing it.

    Meanwhile the current president of Russia planned and executed a false flag attack on an apartment complex to ensure his election as president and Roberts can’t shake his man crush for him.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @schmenz
    , @Anonymous
  3. KA says:
    @Sam Haysom

    It is interesting you said this . But it was done with full complicity of Khodarvosky one of the oligarchs who later fell
    out with Putin. West knew the truth back then . Chechen terrorist came of age after the Russian reaction( bombings and invasion of Chechen second time) s to the self inflicted apartment bombings.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Matra

    How is it embarrassing?

    • Replies: @Glaivester
  5. schmenz says:
    @Sam Haysom

    “Meanwhile the current president of Russia planned and executed a false flag attack on an apartment complex to ensure his election as president”

    Can you supply us with some evidence, please?

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    , @KA
  6. Glaivester says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Perhaps Matra is confusing the recent airliner disappearance with the older one, and therefore thinks that there has been no where near six months?

    • Replies: @Matra
  7. Dutch Boy says:

    I suggest that PCR read Mr. Frost’s article “The Return of Fear”, available currently at The Unz Review.

  8. MC says:

    the german video? where is the link? all we have is a site with pics that are taken with trees in the back ground, never saw that the Kosher sore was a open air store

    this is mere BS

  9. @schmenz

    I think I would be failing to keep with the spirt of Paul Roberts blog if I offered evidence for anything. But I get it you want two standards of proof one for accusations against the USA one for accusations against Mother Russia.

    • Replies: @KA
  10. KA says:
    @schmenz

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/

    and some citations from the same site

    1
    See Sergei Kovalev, “ Putin’s War,” The New York Review, February 10, 2000. The first apartment bombing occurred in Buinaksk, a city in Dagestan, on September 4, followed by two in Moscow, on September 9 and September 13, and an explosion in the city of Volgodonsk on September 16. An earlier bombing at a Moscow shopping center on August 31, which killed one and injured thirty-nine, was not linked by Russian officials at the time to Chechen terrorists, as were the September attacks. In 2009, two men allegedly connected with Chechen separatists were convicted of this bombing. ↩

    2
    As the book’s title suggests, Dunlop’s focus is on what happened in Moscow, but also addresses the other two bombings. ↩

    3
    In addition to his own exhaustive research, Dunlop draws here and elsewhere on two key sources: Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Fel’shtinsky, FSB vzryvaet Rossiyu (The FSB Blows Up Russia) (Liberty, 2002); and David Satter, Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State (Yale University Press, 2003). The book by Litvinenko and Fel’shtinsky appeared in English in 2007, a year after Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning in London. ↩

    4
    See Sergei Kovalev, “ Why Putin Wins,” The New York Review, November 22, 2007. ↩

  11. KA says:
    @Sam Haysom

    “The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin’s Rule
    by John B. Dunlop
    Stuttgart: Ibidem, 251 pp., €34.90 (paper)

    Ivan Sekretarev/AP Images
    A destroyed apartment building at the site of one of the Moscow bombings, September 9, 1999
    In 2000 Sergei Kovalev, then the widely respected head of the Russian organization Memorial, observed in these pages that the apartment bombings in Russia in September 1999, which killed three hundred people and wounded hundreds of others, “were a crucial moment in the unfolding of our current history. After the first shock passed, it turned out that we were living in an entirely different country….”1

    The bombings, it will be recalled, were blamed on Chechen rebels and used as a pretext for Boris Yeltsin’s Kremlin to launch a bloody second war against Chechnya, a republic in the Russian Federation. They also were crucial events in promoting Vladimir Putin’s takeover of the Russian presidency as Yeltsin’s anointed successor in 2000 and in ensuring his dominance over the Russian political scene ever since.

    [MORE]

    As John Dunlop points out in The Moscow Bombings of September 1999, the attacks were the equivalent for Russians of September 11, 2001, for Americans. They aroused a fear of terrorism—along with a desire for revenge against the Chechens—that Russians had not known since Stalin used the supposed terrorist threat as a pretext to launch his bloody purges of the 1930s. Yet unlike in the American case, Russian authorities have stonewalled all efforts to investigate who was behind these acts of terror and why they happened. In the words of Russian journalist Yuliya Kalinina: “The Americans several months after 11 September 2001 already knew everything—who the terrorists were and where they come from…. We in general know nothing.”

    Dunlop, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, seeks in his book to provide the “spade work” for an official Russian inquiry, if it ever were to be initiated (a highly doubtful proposition as long as Putin remains in power). He draws on investigative reporting by Russian journalists, accounts of Russian officials in law enforcement agencies, eyewitness testimony, and the analyses of Western journalists and academics. The evidence he provides makes an overwhelming case that Russian authorities were complicit in these horrific attacks.2

    Dunlop explains why the political situation in which the terrorist attacks took place is crucial for understanding them. Yeltsin and his “Family” (an entourage that included his daughter Tatyana Dyachenko, Yeltsin adviser Valentin Yumashev, who later married Tatyana, the oligarch Boris Berezovsky, and Aleksandr Voloshin, head of the presidential administration) were facing a huge crisis by the spring of 1999. Yeltsin was in ailing health and suffering from alcoholism. His popularity had fallen steeply and there was a strong possibility that his political base—a loose movement called “Unity”—would lose the parliamentary and presidential elections (respectively scheduled for December 1999 and March 2000). Yeltsin and his two daughters were facing reports charging that they had large amounts of money in secret bank accounts abroad through illegal transactions with a Swiss construction firm called Mabetex. And Berezovsky was under investigation for embezzlement when he had been running Aeroflot.

    The Family’s solution to its dilemma, according to Dunlop, was a plan to destabilize Russia and possibly cancel or postpone the elections after declaring a state of emergency. In June 1999, two Western journalists, Jan Blomgren of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet and Giulietto Chiesa, the respected, longtime Moscow correspondent for the Italian newspaper La Stampa, reported that there was going to be an act of “state terrorism” in Russia. The goal would be to instill fear and panic in the population. Chiesa wrote:

    With a high degree of certitude, one can say that the explosions of bombs killing innocent people are always planned by people with political minds who are interested in destabilizing the situation in a country…. It could be foreigners… but it could also be “our own people” trying to frighten the country.
    These reports were followed in July by an article by the Russian journalist Aleksandr Zhilin in the national paper Moskovskaya pravda warning that there would be terrorist attacks in Moscow. Citing a leaked Kremlin document, Zhilin wrote that the purpose would be to derail Yeltsin’s political opponents, in particular Yury Luzhkov, the mayor of Moscow, and the former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov. Zhilin’s information (appearing in an article entitled “Storm in Moscow”) was ignored. What he claimed appeared to be unthinkable.

    Berezovsky, who fled to London in 2000 after a falling-out with Putin, was at the time, according to Dunlop, the mastermind of a plan to destabilize Russia (although not necessarily by using bombs to kill innocent people). He paid huge ransoms to extremist Chechen separatists to gain the release of Russian hostages, thereby undermining the more moderate political forces in Chechnya and encouraging an invasion of the neighboring republic of Dagestan, in August 1999, by Chechen rebel forces. According to Dunlop’s evidence, the Kremlin sponsored the incursion into Dagestan in order to provoke a conflict with Chechnya. This would provide an excuse to declare a state of emergency and postpone the elections. As numerous firsthand reports attested, the rebels were allowed into and out of Dagestan without hindrance.

    Vladimir Putin, named acting Russian prime minister in August 1999, had a central part in carrying out the Dagestan operation. Putin had gained the favor of the Family and thus been anointed as Yeltsin’s successor. As head of the FSB—the successor of the KGB—before he became prime minster, he had demonstrated his loyalty to Yeltsin by managing to get Russian Prosecutor-General Yury Skuratov, who was pursuing the Mabetex corruption scandal, removed from office. Putin’s FSB had also started a campaign against the rich wife of Yury Luzhkov, Elena Baturina, by investigating one of her companies for money-laundering.

    But Putin was unknown to the Russian public. If elections were to take place—and this apparently had yet to be decided upon—his chances were by no means certain. In order for the Family’s “operation successor” to succeed, something would have to occur to boost Putin’s public image and demonstrate his capacity for strong leadership. The invasion of Dagestan by Chechen rebels failed to have the desired effect of arousing widespread anti-Chechen sentiment. As Dunlop’s sources said, more violence was needed to justify a war against Chechnya, which would unite people around the new prime minister.

    The Moscow Bombings makes it clear, first of all, that the FSB had advanced knowledge that the bombings would take place. As we have seen, rumors of impending terrorist attacks had surfaced as early as June 1999. Even more significant is the fact that a respected and influential Duma deputy, Konstantin Borovoy, was told on September 9, the day of the first Moscow apartment bombing, that there was to be a terrorist attack in the city. His source was an officer of the Russian military intelligence (GRU). Borovoy transmitted this information to FSB officials serving on Yeltsin’s Security Council, but he was ignored. At least one other credible warning of an impending attack was reported to law enforcement agencies in Moscow that same day and not acted upon.

    Immediately after the September 13 explosion in Moscow, Putin claimed that the people responsible for the bombings in the Dagestan town of Buinaksk and Moscow were most likely terrorists who were connected with Osama bin Laden and had been trained in Chechnya. Some days later, on September 25, FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev echoed this theme in the pages of the newspaper Moskovskii komsomolets. Responding to suggestions in the Russian press that his agency was behind the bombings, he wrote: “The organizers are not some mythical conspirators in the Kremlin, but completely concrete international terrorists dug into Chechnya.” The FSB and the Russian Procuracy later identified the masterminds of all the attacks as two Arab mercenaries, Al-Khattab and Abu Umar, who were subsequently killed in Chechnya.

    But the official explanations did not quell suspicions about FSB complicity among liberal, anti-Yeltsin journalists who were already making their own investigations. Their suspicions were intensified by a strange incident that occurred on September 22 in the city of Ryazan, about a hundred miles southeast of Moscow.3 Residents of an apartment complex had reported unusual activity in the basement and observed that three people in a car with partially papered-over license plates had unloaded sacks whose contents they couldn’t make out. A professional bomb squad arrived and discovered that the sacks contained not only sugar but also explosives, including hexogen, and that a detonator was attached. After the sacks were examined and removed, they were sent by the local FSB to Moscow.

    The entire apartment building was evacuated. Local authorities found the car used by the three who had planted the explosives, a white Zhiguli, in a nearby parking lot. To their astonishment the license plates were traced to the FSB. And when they apprehended two of the suspects, it turned out that they were FSB employees, who were soon released on orders from Moscow.

    After a day and a half of silence, Patrushev announced on television that the apparent bomb had been part of a “training exercise” and that the sacks contained only sugar. The local Ryazan FSB and regular police, who had been combing the city for more explosives, expressed outrage. In the words of one police official: “Our preliminary tests showed the presence of explosives…. As far as we were concerned, the danger was real.”

    If this incident was in fact just an exercise, it is difficult to understand why Vladimir Rushailo, the Russian minister of interior, who headed an antiterrorism commission, knew nothing about it beforehand. Shortly before Patrushev’s announcement, Rushailo spoke publicly about the terrorist act that had been planned in Ryazan and praised the people of that city for thwarting it. As Dunlop and many others have concluded, the materials discovered in Ryazan were the makings of a real bomb, and the FSB was caught in the act. In the light of this evidence, Dunlop writes, it has become all the more likely that the September terrorist attacks were also the FSB’s work.

    As Sergei Kovalev, who in 2002 created an unofficial commission to investigate the bombings, made clear, the authorities put out a great deal of disinformation but actually did little to refute the claims of FSB involvement. The trials of those accused of taking part in the Moscow and Volgodonsk plots were closed, so the evidence against the alleged terrorists was never made public. (The Buinaksk trial, in which six persons, all from Dagestan, were found guilty, was public, but, as Dunlop reports, the investigators routinely used physical coercion to extort confessions.)

    In the first trial of the alleged attackers in Moscow, which began in May 2001, five residents of the North Caucasian Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia were charged with preparing the explosives used in the bombs and sentenced to life. At a second trial, held in 2003–2004, two other defendants from that same republic were found guilty of terrorism, again with the documents and even the full sentence in the case kept secret. These same two defendants were charged with carrying out the Volgodonsk bombings. It is worth noting that in the Moscow cases, none of the accused had been physically present in the city around the time of the explosions, and none of those charged in any of the cases was an ethnic Chechen.

    The organizer of the Moscow terrorist acts, according to the FSB and the Russian Procuracy, was Achemez Gochiyaev, also from Karachaevo-Cherkessia; he later fled into hiding in Georgia. In Moscow, Gochiyaev was said to be operating under the false name of Makhid Laipanov. Thanks to the stubborn investigative work of Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB lieutenant colonel, it turns out that the man who carried out the bombings was not Gochiyaev, but Vladimir Romanovich, who worked for the FSB and was reportedly killed in an automobile accident in Cyprus in 2003. In November 2003, after Trepashkin’s findings were reported in the Russian press, he was arrested on false charges of carrying illegal weapons. Trepashkin was released briefly in 2005, but then was rearrested and remained in prison until 2007.

    Meanwhile, the efforts of Kovalev’s commission to unearth the facts were stymied at every turn. (Trepashkin had been the commission’s lawyer before his arrest.) The commission could not interview witnesses under oath or gain access to documents and testimony in the cases. One important commission member, liberal Duma deputy Sergei Yushenkov, was gunned down in Moscow in April 2003, and another, the prominent investigative journalist Yuri Shchekochikhin, died suddenly in July of that year. Many suspect he was poisoned. As a result, the commission’s work ground to a halt.

    A central question involved the materials used in the explosives. The day after the first Moscow apartment bombing, an FSB spokesman said that both hexogen and TNT were discovered. Patrushev himself confirmed this in his September television interview. But by March 2000 the FSB had changed its story and claimed that hexogen had not been used in the bombs. In fact, several Russian investigative journalists were able to demonstrate that hexogen was the key ingredient in all of the bombs and that hexogen can only be obtained from Russian government facilities under the control of the FSB. According to Novaya gazeta reporter Pavel Voloshin:

    The targets, perpetrators and zakazchiki [those who gave orders] of the terrorist acts can be determined by the provenance of the explosives. The circulation of explosive substances in Russia is under strict state control…. To “conceal” a supply of hexogen by skirting the existing rules is de facto impossible.
    Another important issue is that of the motives for the bombings. As the former high-ranking general Aleksandr Lebed pointed out in an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro in September 1999, Chechen rebels had little to gain by blowing up innocent civilians. But Yeltsin and his Family had a clear purpose: “A goal had been set—to create mass terror, a destabilization which will permit them at the needed moment to say: you don’t have to go to the election precincts, otherwise you will risk being blown up with the ballot boxes.”

    As it turned out, there was no need to cancel the elections, because the Russian people rallied around Putin and his vows to seek revenge against ethnic Chechens. Russian troops began invading Chechnya on October 1. His approval ratings soared: from 31 percent in mid-August to 78 percent in November. As Dunlop notes: “The continuing upward movement in Putin’s rating was accompanied by an increase in the hatred, which soon became incandescent, on the part of ethnic Russians for Chechens.”

    The evidence provided in The Moscow Bombings makes it abundantly clear that the FSB of the Russian Republic, headed by Patrushev, was responsible for carrying out the attacks. But who ordered them from on high? Dunlop concludes that it was most likely the three members of Yeltsin’s “inner circle”: Aleksandr Voloshin, Valentin Yumashev, and Yeltsin’s daughter Tatyana, who were the closest to Yeltsin. But he does not address the possible role of Berezovsky.

    After he left Russia, Berezovsky, on countless occasions, claimed publicly that the FSB had been behind the bombings. However, as the political observer Andrei Piontkovsky pointed out, Berezovsky himself must have had some knowledge of the impending terrorist attacks:

    The highest authority in the land was the team in charge of Operation Successor (Berezovskii, Voloshin, Yumashev, Dyachenko) who were acting on behalf of an incapable Boris Yeltsin…. The aim [of the Family] was to avert a takeover of the Kremlin by the rival clan of Luzhkov and Primakov…. The shameful secret of how the Putin regime was conceived binds Putin and Berezovskii together with a single chain.
    To be sure, these leading Kremlin figures had strong motives for wanting Putin to become Yeltsin’s successor. They could count on him to protect them and Yeltsin himself from charges of widespread corruption. Yet it is hard to imagine that they would have gone so far as to order bombings that they knew would kill so many innocent people. The more likely possibility is that the FSB was told by Yeltsin’s inner circle that violent acts were needed to destabilize Russia but that no specific instructions were given to blow up apartment buildings. The FSB, including its top leadership, responded by seizing the initiative.

    What, then, was the role of Putin, who was prime minister at the time, and also secretary of the Security Council? In his “self-portrait,” First Person, published in 2000, Putin denied categorically that the FSB was involved: “What?! Blowing up our own apartment buildings? You know, that is really…utter nonsense! It’s totally insane. No one in the Russian special services would be capable of such a crime against his own people.” But of course the FSB, as Dunlop demonstrates, was indeed capable of committing this terrible act. And it is inconceivable that it would have been done without the sanction of Putin.

    Yeltsin wrote in his memoirs Midnight Diaries that after Putin was appointed prime minister in August 1999, “Putin turned to me and requested absolute power…to coordinate all power structures.” This of course would have included the FSB. Furthermore FSB chief Patrushev was a very trusted longtime ally of Putin’s from St. Petersburg. Their ties dated back to 1975, when both joined the KGB in what was then Leningrad and worked together in the counterintelligence department. When Putin took over the FSB in July 1998, Patrushev served as his deputy, assuming Putin’s post after he became prime minister. Asked in an interview for First Person who he especially trusted, Putin named, among a few others, Patrushev.

    When Putin and his wife, Lyudmila, flew by helicopter on a surprise visit to Chechnya on New Years Eve, 1999, they were accompanied by Patrushev and his wife. According to Mrs. Putin, at midnight, while en route, they drank champagne straight from the bottle. They had good reason to celebrate. Russian troops had penetrated deep into Chechnya, seizing the city of Gudermes, where Putin and his entourage were headed. Putin had just been named acting president by Yeltsin, with his victory in the upcoming March presidential contest assured. And Patrushev, with Putin’s protection, was securely in charge of the FSB, where he would remain for the next eight years. (He then moved on to the even more powerful post of secretary of the president’s Security Council, which he holds to this day.)

    In the preface to his book, Dunlop cites Russian journalist Anton Orekh, who made the following observations about the Russian bombings just after the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States:

    If those bombings were not accidental in the sequence of events which followed; if, to put it bluntly, they were the work of our [Russian] authorities—then everything will once and forever take its proper place. Then there is not and cannot be an iota of illusion about [the nature of] those who rule us. Then those people are not minor or large-scale swindlers and thieves. Then they are the most terrible of criminals.
    Orekh’s comments were made just ten days before Putin announced that he would be running again for the Russian presidency, instead of the incumbent, Dmitri Medvedev. With Putin now set to remain in power until 2018, and possibly even six years longer, suspicions among Russians about his involvement in the 1999 bombings remain. Dunlop is convinced that the truth about September 1999 will eventually come out, although “that may take a decade or more to occur.” But as Sergei Kovalev observed in late 2007, most Russians are indifferent: “I have met people who were convinced that the accusations were true, and yet they voted for Putin with equal conviction. Their logic is simple: genuine rulers wield the kind of power that can do anything, including commit crimes.”4 As more than twelve years of investigation, and now Dunlop’s book, have shown, Putin’s guilt seems clear, but it makes no difference.

    1
    See Sergei Kovalev, “ Putin’s War,” The New York Review, February 10, 2000. The first apartment bombing occurred in Buinaksk, a city in Dagestan, on September 4, followed by two in Moscow, on September 9 and September 13, and an explosion in the city of Volgodonsk on September 16. An earlier bombing at a Moscow shopping center on August 31, which killed one and injured thirty-nine, was not linked by Russian officials at the time to Chechen terrorists, as were the September attacks. In 2009, two men allegedly connected with Chechen separatists were convicted of this bombing. ↩

    2
    As the book’s title suggests, Dunlop’s focus is on what happened in Moscow, but also addresses the other two bombings. ↩

    3
    In addition to his own exhaustive research, Dunlop draws here and elsewhere on two key sources: Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Fel’shtinsky, FSB vzryvaet Rossiyu (The FSB Blows Up Russia) (Liberty, 2002); and David Satter, Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State (Yale University Press, 2003). The book by Litvinenko and Fel’shtinsky appeared in English in 2007, a year after Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning in London. ↩

    4
    See Sergei Kovalev, “ Why Putin Wins,” The New York Review, November 22, 2007. ↩,

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/

  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Hasbara alert!

  13. Matra says:
    @Glaivester

    No, PCR said the investigation into the downing of MH17 was completed six months ago! It’s only been six months since the crash. There was a preliminary report released in September stating what probably hit the plane but that is all. The Dutch only got the final parts of the plane – which they are reconstructing – in early December so it is going to take several more months to rebuild it. There are two separate investigations going on. One is by the ICAO to determine what caused the plane to go down. Annex 13 of the ICAO states that this investigation is not about apportioning blame just finding out what caused the accident. The other investigation is a criminal one being conducted by the Dutch government – ie who was responsible. Based on similar events in the past the criminal investigation in particular can take a long time, some times years to be completed. The main Dutch victims group and the Malaysian government are annoyed at the pace of both investigations but other than that everything is proceeding as usual – remember the investigators have had a difficult time accessing the crash site due to the ongoing war. Doing a quick search the only press sources I see claiming a single investigation was completed and kept secret are obvious Russian disinformation sites and Counterpunch.

  14. bossel says:

    Coulibaly with tied hands containing no weapons shot downand killed when he could easily have been captured

    How anyone can recognize that the hands are tied in a video of that quality is beyond me. When he falls, his hands are close together, but there is nothing visible tying them together.
    What’s more, you clearly see that he drops something when he reaches the. From the size & shape it could be quite easily identified as a kind of gun.
    But, then again, PCR’s eyes are much much better than mine & he clearly sees everything (he wants to see).

    The German print and TV media have suffered dramatic declines in readers and viewers

    Did they? Printed editions of German newspapers declined from 27.3 m in 1991 to 16.8 m in 2014, but nowadays some 13% of Germans read e-papers. So, if there was a decline it was probably marginal. The problem for the German newspapers is only that their online format doesn’t earn them a lot of revenue.

    Thinking people no longer trust the German media.

    If they ever trusted the media, then they were not thinking very well, anyway. You shouldn’t trust media, you need media competence to understand what’s going on. It’s clear that PCR doesn’t get that. He needs something to (dis-)believe, but to blame others for his own failings is just ridiculous.

    Maybe PCR should read Mechanisms of Trust by Jan Müller. He could learn something. Then again, he has such a deep confirmation bias, I doubt he would…

    • Replies: @bossel
  15. bossel says:
    @bossel

    he drops something when he reaches the.

    There is a door missing. Sorry.

  16. Kiza says:

    This PCR write up is mostly about Charlie Hebdo, including its title, but it steered up the usual professional but raving mad Russia-hating team at unz.com: Sam, KA, bossel etc. Please do not ask them for any evidence regarding their statements, because they will immediately quote the CIA innuendo. It is because, in the new world of the CIA and US Government controlled media no proof is ever required any more, not even fabricated “evidence”, all that is needed is official statements by the people of authority. Such statements simply create new fact-free virtual reality, an alternative nightmarish world much worse than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice experienced behind a mirror. Such media work hand-in-hand with the CIA movie production factory with output such as The Hurt Locker, ZDT, Argo, American Sniper and tons of other totally dumb rubbish for the already dumbed down masses.

    But Charlie Hebdo is a case study in the power of the 0.01% Western elite. France was not chosen by chance to put 4M morons out on the street to demonstrate in favour of Western regime’s vulgarity which it labels “humour”. France is the nation of René Descartes, the birth-nation of doubt and skepticism in the official truths, most of all the established political truths. What happened in France was a show of unchallengeable domination by the controlling elites, pushing 4M onto the streets to demonstrate for “freedom-of-speech” whilst simultaneously arresting a few who expressed an opposite opinion.

    I note two distinct and opposing trends: the regime’s control of the minds (Western “news” and “entertainment”) is becoming more extreme, whilst a minority is rebelling stronger and stronger. PCR is one of the leaders of this minority.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  17. @Kiza

    First time I’ve had to stiffle a giggle and a yawn at the same time.

    We get you really hate the USA for the humiliation it dealt your country. I’d be embarrassed too if Ike had banged his shoe on the table and said “we will crush you” and you guys had won. But you didn’t and your nation can’t feed itself when things get bad so work on ratcheting that angry down a bit. It’s the angry ones who always starve first.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
  18. Kiza says:

    Dear Sam,

    I would recommend that you inform yourself and wash away those cobwebs of propaganda in your mind before you make comments on a topic. You presumed long ago that I am Russian although I have honestly and repeatedly stated that I do not even speak Russian let alone that I am of Russian nationality or descent.

    Let us clarify your comment:
    1) The person who said what you misquoted is Nikita Khrushchev, a former Soviet premier, who is Ukrainian not Russian. The Ukrainians are now the “good guys” armed and abated by your side because they are bombarding the ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine. To equate Russia with Soviets is like to equate US with UK.
    2) Khrushchev did not say – “we will crush you”, then something akin to “we will bury you”, but even that was a an intentional Western media mis-translation of his full statement: “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in” (“Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем”). In his subsequent public speech Khrushchev declared: “[…] We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can”. As usual, taken out of context and mistranslated, to become a Western urban legend.

    Reading your comment, I did neither giggle nor yawn, I felt pity for your inability to launch your mind beyond any regime’s official narrative.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  19. @Kiza

    Giggle. What else is there to say to that world class hair splitting. Never said Kruschev was Russian and I really could care less about your particular translation. You are just some guy pretending to not be Russian on the Internet. I’d be tempted to do the same, but Im from a decent country that doesn’t lose globe spanning ideological stand offs. I’d highly recommended it. It’s liberating to not have to pretend to be from a differnt country.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  20. Kiza says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Not being Russian but having lived under communism, I can only recognise an eerie similarity between today’s West and the later day communism. When communist media talking heads were proudly declaring broad range increases in the manufacturing/agricultural production and working-class happiness, you were not supposed to look for the proof or facts. You were an “enemy of the people” or the working-class (never of the controlling elite) if you had doubts. Especially dangerous were the individuals who were not part of the communist elite but were prepared to denounce any non-believer to the regime for persecution. The most famous extreme and invented story was that of Pavel Morozov, a 13 year boy who supposedly denounced his own father to the Stalin’s regime. The father got executed, but the son, who was later killed by the neighbours became the Hero of the Soviet Union. This story of the boy’s “heroism” was invented by Stalin’s propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov

    Likewise, today’s behaviour of Western leaders – statements without a grain of fact, without even an attempt to fabricate the evidence – the official statement of the regime is more than enough for the right-thinking believers. The West has NSA instead of Stasi, but it is also developing the denouncers (like Sam): if you question the “established orthodoxy” then you are a foreign element, an enemy of the state, a Muslim terrorist or a Russian, all while swearing in the “freedom-of-expression”.

    You become what you hate, or as in the primitive tribal warfare, you become your enemy when you win the battle and eat his heart to celebrate.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Apparently Jean-Marie Le Pen, the father of Marine Le Pen and the reason why Marine has a political career, shares some of Paul Craig Roberts’s suspicions regarding the attacks:

    “Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of Western intelligence”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html

    The Charlie Hebdo massacre may have been the work of an “intelligence agency”, working with the connivance of French authorities, according to Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far right Front National.

    In an interview with a virulently anti-Western Russian newspaper, Mr Le Pen, 86, gave credence to conspiracy theories circulating on the internet suggesting that the attack was the work of American or Israeli agents seeking to foment a civil war between Islam and the West.

    The shooting at Charlie Hebdo resembles a secret service operation but we have no proof of that,” the newspaper quoted Mr Le Pen as saying. “I don’t think it was organised by the French authorities but they permitted this crime to be committed. That, for the moment, is just a supposition.”

    To justify his comments, Mr Le Pen pointed to the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers, who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre, left his identity card in a crashed getaway car. He compared this to the “miraculous fact” – beloved by conspiracy theorists – that one of the passports of the 9/11 hijackers was found on the ground in New York after two planes collided with the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in 2001.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    , @WhatEvvs
  22. Ross says:
    @Matra

    That’s as embarrassing a sentence as anything PCR has ever written.

    That’s a very competitive field. Whyanyone would be willing to humiliate and degrade himself like this just to suck up to a thuggish government is a mystery to me.

  23. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Do you think the drop in the price of oil is industrial warfare against Russia? Are we in cahoots with Saudi to destroy them? I’m really curious as to what you think, not “phishing.”

  24. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Anonymous

    Pravda is saying the same, that the Paris attacks were US intel. There’s no end to the universe, or human stupidity, as the saying goes.

  25. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Anonymous

    Apologies – we are talking about the same thing.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS