This was no ordinary jihad attack

Guest post by Leo Hohmann

Bloody March 22 attack on Moscow-area concert hall has been immediately propagandized by both Russia and US/NATO, and the two accounts bear no resemblance to each other. Who is telling the truth?

I’ve been slow to write anything about the horrific terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue last Friday that claimed the lives of 143 Russians on the outskirts of Moscow.

I’m not one who is given to knee-jerk reactions, especially when the stakes are as high as they are now.

Most Americans are not aware of it yet, but what happened in Russia on Friday, March 22, places all of us in grave danger, especially those of us who reside in the U.K. and U.S., but also in France, Germany or Poland. Not to mention Ukraine, which is already feeling the brunt of Russian anger over what happened.

I don’t need to regurgitate the details but, basically, four Muslims, in a highly coordinated military style assault, shot their way into the building, then shot everyone they came in contact with. It was indiscriminate killing. Then they burned the building down.

The U.S. almost immediately came out and blamed ISIS-K in Afghanistan for the attack and ISIS-K dutifully took responsibility.

So we have little doubt that the shooters were somehow connected to ISIS-K at least on a surface level.

But the message coming out of the Russian media is very different. There’s been no emphasis on ISIS being the main facilitator of the attack. They believe Ukraine was at least partially responsible and Putin hinted in his address to the nation on March 23 that there could be others who worked behind the scenes to “organize” and “prepare” the attack. He talked about Ukraine preparing “a window” through which the shooters tried to escape and the shooters were apprehended heading in the direction of Ukraine.

So something doesn’t add up with this whole ISIS narrative.

In a normal jihad attack, the perpetrators don’t try to escape. They keep killing until confronted and killed by authorities. They want to be killed because that’s the only way to receive their promised reward from Allah on the other side of this life. They get their 72 black-eyed, full-breasted virgins and get to have fun for the rest of eternity (or so they believe).

But these killers did not kill for a heavenly reward. They killed for an earthly reward. Money.

In his initial interrogation, captured on video, one of the shooters told the Russians that he was promised in a deal made over the Telegram messaging app to be paid $5,400 for the job of shooting up a bunch of Russians. The initial conversation was with an assistant to an Islamic cleric. He flew to Turkey where he received further instructions and training.

Who paid for that flight? Who paid for the weapons?

As has been widely reported, the U.S. State Department also warned its embassy staff in Moscow on March 7 that ISIS was planning to carry out a terrorist attack in the Moscow area and they should avoid concerts and other large gatherings. That was very specific information and no other information was reportedly sent to the Russian government, according to former CIA analyst Larry Johnson speaking in an interview with Judge Andrew Napalitano.

But it gets even weirder.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland announced her resignation from the State Department just over a month ago.

In a February 22 speech, marking the second anniversary of Russia sending troops into Ukraine, Nuland stated:

“With this money, Ukraine will be able to fight back in the East and accelerate the asymmetric warfare that has been most effective on the battlefield. And as I said in Kyiv three weeks ago, this supplemental funding will ensure Putin faces some nasty surprises on the battlefield this year.” (emphasis mine)

Was March 22 one of those “nasty surprises”? Was it part of Ukraine’s asymmetrical warfare against Russia?

Maybe this was just your typical ISIS jihad attack. We may never know for sure.

But U.S. government statements leading up to the attack seem awfully strange.

It seems that whoever hatched and planned this attack did it with the intention of escalating and widening the war between NATO-proxy Ukraine and Russia. And the timing is suspect, coming just as Russia is destroying what’s left of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield.

If we know nothing else about NATO it’s this: NATO has never given a single sign or indication that it would like the war in Ukraine to come to a peaceful end. Its leaders have given many statements that indicate they would like to see the war continue. The statements of Emmanuel Macron, president of France, have been the most provocative, as he has twice stated his intentions to send French troops into Ukraine to fight Russians. NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has also given no ground on the issue of Ukraine joining NATO, which NATO knows is a huge issue that Putin will never accept. Stoltenberg said it’s a “matter of when not if” Ukraine is admitted into NATO — these are fighting words in the ears of any patriotic Russian.

So don’t think that ISIS is the sole perpetrator. It’s possible, but unlikely. And what matters most is that Putin and the Russians don’t believe ISIS acted alone in the slaughter of 143 Russians. They believe Ukraine and possibly other state actors were involved and have already started unleashing retribution, crossing over Polish airspace over the weekend on their way to a missile bombardment of Ukraine the likes of which had not been seen to date. An angry Russia is a dangerous Russia and NATO seems intent on making sure that Russia gets angrier and angrier. This won’t end well for the West if it continues down the path of poking the bear.

And let’s not forget who facilitated the rise of ISIS in the first place. It was the United States of America and its allies under the administration of Barack Obama. ISIS was never fully destroyed, as Donald Trump boasted. ISIS is too valuable to the West as a useful idiot, a patsy, to ever be fully destroyed. Because you never know when you might need to pull the trigger on another “nasty surprise” for some foreign leader.