If the terrorists were just some random hajis, they would try to reach the "tribal" areas of the Northern Caucasus - places were even FSB wouldn't dare to follow them - instead they took their chances and tried to reach the ukrainian border.
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Current Events in Russia
- Thread starter Cynllo
- Start date
If the terrorists were just some random hajis, they would try to reach the "tribal" areas of the Northern Caucasus - places were even FSB wouldn't dare to follow them - instead they took their chances and tried to reach the ukrainian border.
El Dorado
Other Christian
A Ukrainian Jew recruiting Mohammedans to serve as his armed golems against a Christian state? I did NOT see that coming.
This is one of the most disturbing ideas I've ever seen posited on this forum.
A defense of evil acts because the law allows you an "out"?
(Actually America is claiming they DID give a warning to Russia) but where is this defense of the deep state doing evil coming from?
Why would one bend over backwards to provide cover for evil acts?
I mean in a strictly legalistic sense of pilpul, there may be a grain of truth, but what kind of contortions must one do to find a way to condone evil?
The "there is no law, there is no crime" line is equally confusing... Assume there was some "law" compelling good behavior on the side of America. This is a nation that is aiding a Genocide in Gaza, that committed terror destroying civilian infrastructre, and regularly violates its own rules against torture, censorship, and legal procedure. You think they would follow some law in this case? Would it be any less tolerable if there was such a law?
What if you came home to a burned down house and your neighbor said "Yeah I saw some guys with matches and gallons of gas but there was no law compelling me to call the fire department, so, I mean, sorry, your house is gone now."
I'm afraid I missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, only if the state has passed a law requiring you to do so. Otherwise just be secretly evil and you can trick God and he'll never know, especially if you do some pilpul and put up a magic wire (Eruv) around your room making it free from God's eyes"
Anyway, it seems this isn't what happened, and the US is claiming they warned Russia, and it seems obvious we are seeing a US planned and instigated attack ,but I still have to call out this dangerous line of thinking.
Stating the obvious - no country is obliged to provide any kind of support to its adversaries, and America clearly considers Russia as such. Politics is simply immoral. Would I like it to change ? - Yes, I would wish to live in a world where morals take precedence over interests and rivalries, but it's not gonna happen until a time comes when all leaders embrace Christ.
Rax, it's actually a common precept of common law that no one is obliged to help someone else in distress.
As they teach in law school, "You may go to Hell, but you won't go to jail for failure to help someone in trouble."
That said, it looks like even the immoral West realizes they cannot simply remain silent:
www.zerohedge.com
As they teach in law school, "You may go to Hell, but you won't go to jail for failure to help someone in trouble."
That said, it looks like even the immoral West realizes they cannot simply remain silent:
US & NATO Issue Rare 'Solidarity' Messages After Moscow Attack As Death Toll Rises To 137; Bizarre Terrorist 'Confessions' Emerge | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
The Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37
I can't believe we have people here pleading the contrary.
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
I can't believe we have people here pleading the contrary.
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Amen.
And no one here argues with that, but the people who run American policy do not adhere to the teachings of Christ. Take US policy in ukraine as an example - up until recently, Victoria Nuland/Nudelman was in charge of it, and this terror attack might as well be one of the surprises that she promised. You go and quote Scripture to her, and she might burst into flames upon hearing it.
Caduceus
Heritage
It might be the lighting but it seems their skin color has gone from white to a dark shade of yellow.
Perhaps they were given "truth serum" drugs to make them talk or other poisons.
This was very obviously a CIA/Ukraine operation, simply due to the fact that the perpetrators allowed themselves to be captured and quickly confessed that they were paid for the job. Actual Islamic jihadists would have wanted to be martyred and died fighting. This basically looks like the international version of the well-worn FBI domestic terrorism playbook: they stalk some lonely, low IQ guy online then convince him against his better judgment to attempt some "terrorist attack", and give him a fake bomb before immediately arresting him. In this case, however, they just trolled Islamic Telegram until they found a few guys (who literally seem borderline retarded based on the videos) and offered them money and weapons to do the same thing. Except they didn't stop them at the last minute.
Not pleading the contrary Rax. Read me carefully. I said "common law," with a lowercase L. Not "the Law," which is God's Law.
Common law you can do immoral things, and the reasons for so are complex and beyond this thread topic, and still not be arrested.
Hence, the saying about the law: "You may go to hell, but you won't go to jail." People, especially Talmuds (aka Pharisees), abuse this all the time.
Now, how will Russia react to this is anyone's guess. They certainly don't need to give a damn about common law. They obviously don't need to tolerate the American gov on their soil if they stop trusting them.
Their original designated target was a Shaman concert, which took place at the same venue 3 weeks ago, shortly after the warning issued by the US consulate. Shaman is a young local star, the most popular singer in Russia today, riding his patriotic hit single "Ya Roosky" (meaning I am Russian), which has become a modern anthem of sorts for young Russians.
Here is Shaman singing that song last year, at the very same Crocus theater where the massacre took place:
It turned out that the security for that Shaman concert 3 weeks ago was very tight, perhaps the Russians felt that it would be a prime target. So the perps and their handlers chose instead to strike 3 weeks later at another Crocus concert which did not have as tight a security setup.
I concur with Scorpion's point above, jihadi terrorists would have just chosen any site with crowds and relatively low security - school, mall, office building, train/subway station etc, and would have gone down swinging. As well the fact that there was a terror cell network with many people providing logistical support also points to a foreign state actor.
Here is Shaman singing that song last year, at the very same Crocus theater where the massacre took place:
It turned out that the security for that Shaman concert 3 weeks ago was very tight, perhaps the Russians felt that it would be a prime target. So the perps and their handlers chose instead to strike 3 weeks later at another Crocus concert which did not have as tight a security setup.
I concur with Scorpion's point above, jihadi terrorists would have just chosen any site with crowds and relatively low security - school, mall, office building, train/subway station etc, and would have gone down swinging. As well the fact that there was a terror cell network with many people providing logistical support also points to a foreign state actor.
I watched that video. You keep seeing the lying Western media claim Russia is a failing country. However, it looks like the Russian people have very high morale if this kind of song is so popular. Of course, I have been hearing this was the case in many different ways, but this song seems to confirm it. Russia seems to be entering a Golden Age.
There was a video of young women from St Petersburg dancing at their big graduation party last Summer that went viral in the west, because none of these young women were fat or ugly - they were dancing and singing that song. It looked like an American graduation party from the 1980s...
Uhm, 500k rubles is around 5k USD right? Im also very certain it was CIA/Mossad but how do you find people mass killing for 5k? This is insane. My bathroom cost more than that.
That's only half of the payment they were promised. They were promised another 500k rubles after the deed. That's a lot of money in Tajikistan. For reference, Tajikistan's GDP per capita is USD $1,180 (nominal) and $5,360 (PPP).
It’s not understandable because most people are incredibly spoiled financially in the West and have lost all their fear. Just look around at the middle aged soccer moms driving luxury SUVs, who turn up their noses and look down on anybody they feel is beneath them. Or the single women with impossible standards, thinking the man has to be the equivalent of a king to date him. It’s becoming like a neo-caste system. Or men who do the same thing who think they cannot be touched.
5K is a lot of money in different parts of the world.
This will not last once times get grim and the tribulations begin to occur.
Haha, indeed.
But even on a non-religious level I have a big problem with this type of thinking.
Even atheists will tell you they have a sense of right and wrong, and a morality. I don't think Richard Dawkins would treat me in an uncharitable way just because he's not Christian. (He CERTAINLY would be upset at the idea that it's fine not to warn others of harm or death).
I still don't understand the point being made, and it's probably a minor comment that we shouldn't discuss further, but it was really bothering me last night as I was trying to go to bed, that I came across this evil idea in this Christian forum, that it is ok to do evil things if the law doesn't compell you otherwise. I mean, the thought that such a thing is even in the minds of fellow Christians, and that it has some sort of legitimacy at all, to anyone, is repellant to me.
I mean what are we doing, repeating the ideology of Victoria Nuland? Why?
Are we just stating that water is wet? That the US does bad things? Uh ok I guess.
Does that need to be said?
You know, the phillosophical basis behind not using the Lord's name in vain, and not swearing, is that by saying evil words, you are on some level reinforcing them and justifying them. This was a strongly held belief of the 1700s American protestants. Even repeating things like "It's ok to kill your fetus if you want" is a dangerous thing to say, even if you are claiming "oh that's just what immoral people think (instead, one should speak truth, such as "A fetus should be honored and nurtured, as it will becoming a child of God"). So if we are merely repeating immoral talking points, why? (Particularly when they are so obvious that most normies would not challenge them)
Now I'm sure you would say "Oh but I don't mean that about myself, I mean it about others" .. well ok I guess, but I don't really feel any better. I could also make the argument that "Hey I think some child molesters are actually sexually attracted to a child and not to adults and therefore for them its normal to molest. Oh I don't mean me, I just mean them." Hopefully that would receive a WTF response, which is what I'm feeling now.
I don't like the idea of Christians positing evil justifications. And I think in this case this evil boogeyman we have created for the sake of argument is even more evil than the actual US government itself: I mean if you told Ned Price "The US is under no obligation to warn others if they find out about a terrorist attack" I think his gay cheeks would turn even redder and he would be very hesitant to agree with you.
And that's proven in the actual facts here: Not only did the US provide some type of warning but they sent condolences afterwards. So even they don't believe this evil justification for "sometimes it's ok to let good people die if we have a good enough excuse."
Basically, the idea that "it's ok to be the opposite of the good Samaritan" for ANY reason, moral, political, or religious, is one I STRONGLY and FIRMLY reject, wholeheartedly, every single time.
I've had a few instances in business where someone has brought up an action that our firm could take, though it would be wrong or unethical to do, but the law allows it, and I firmly reject those every time. And I'm not even coming from a religious justification, but just a sense that our firm should act ethically period, no matter the religion or beliefs of any of our workers. I would not accept such an argument that "Oh but the law allows us to do evil" in any scenario (and again, I don't understand this "there is no law" argument either because it's not as if the USG follows its own laws so whether there is a law about sharing terrorism information, (which would be a very bizarre and weirdly specific law to have), is irrelevant).
I hope that the reaction of most of us here, upon hearing that there is nothing that compels someone to share information about impending harm or death, is to immediately say "NO!!!! WRONG!!!!!!"
Last edited:
Mi6 has a pretty strong Russian spy apparatus. The CIA's was pretty mediocre in the 1960s and is laughable today.
As for picking up such a plan... Unless one lives in a police state, it's pretty hard to prevent such a thing happening from time to time, if someone evil enough has the motivation. All it took was some firearms and a few thousand dollars. This kind of thing could happen tomorrow in the US, sad to say (and if you look at the news, it *does* happen all the time. We have considerably more deaths from random mass shooting events every year than Russia, though this was a particularly large event).
Should Russia have prevented it? I mean, yeah, everyone would like that if it were true. But I'm not sure I would want to live in the kind of society that could easily prevent such things. Should the US have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing? The Christmas Parade shooting? The DC sniper terrorist? The Superbowl parade shooting? Ask how they practically would have prevented such things, and then question whether you would want to live in such a society.
That's not what happened. No one has even claimed that. The whole idea of "we pick up conversations through spying which gives us pre-knowledge of crimes" is just propaganda (mostly western) governments put out to convince their populations to allow spying and censorship. This kind of spying isn't even fictional--you won't even find such absurd claims in the pages of Ian Fleming or George Orwell, both real life spy agents for their government.
No one claims that spy satellites and wiretapping actually makes things safer. They don't even try to claim that anecdotally or fictionally. It's not even a good plot for a Jason Bourne movie. Most spy satellite stuff is for censorship and corporate espionage purposes. (OK there was that one Tom Cruise movie about pre-crime but it was dystopian sci-fi set in the future)
Anyway, it's obvious to Russia and most observers that US/UK instigated, planned, or had general knowledge, even if they didn't perpetrate the crime or know the precise details. That's the obvious implication of the US/UK warnings. No one thinks the US/UK organically discovered this, or just happened to catch a phone call someone made where they talked about this plan to murder a bunch of Russians, and no one has made that claim either.