Group Threatens Olympic Attacks

The group "Vilayat Dagestan" which is part of the Caucasus Emirate, has claimed credit for the recent bomb attacks in Volgograd, Russia, and threatens more for the Olympics.

"We've prepared a present for you and all tourists who'll come over," the video says. "If you will hold the Olympics, you'll get a present from us for the Muslim blood that's been spilled."

The two men in the video, identified as Suleiman and Abdurakhman, claimed to be the suicide bombers from the recent bombings and showed pictures of themselves with explosives strapped to their bodies.

Doku Umarov, the leader of the Caucasus Emirate, initially called for attacks on the Olympics, but later rescinded them.

Here is the Google-translated version of their statement that accompanied the video. [More...]

Vladimir Putin says 40 thousand law enforcement and special services officers will provide security at the Olympics.

He also says there will be no persecution of gays, insisting that the law Russia recently passed against gay propaganda applies only to child sex offenses:

In our country, all people are absolutely equal regardless of their religion, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal. We have recently only passed a law prohibiting propaganda, and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, child sexual abuse. But this has nothing in common with persecuting individuals for their sexual orientation. And there is a world of difference between these things. So there is no danger for individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation who are planning to come to the Games as guests or participants.

The law is called "Ban on propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality". Putin says Russia does not criminalize homosexuality.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that in Russia, as opposed to one third of the world’s countries, there is no criminal liability for homosexuality. 70 countries in the world have criminal liability for homosexuality, and seven countries out of these 70 enforce the death penalty for homosexuality.

He makes this point:

Those 70 countries I have mentioned mostly belong to the Islamic world, and the ones enforcing death penalty all have Islam as state religion.

....In some US states, homosexuality is criminally punishable. And how can they criticize us for a far gentler and more liberal approach to these issues compared to the one they have at home?

He also brings up Elton John:

[P]eople of non-traditional sexual orientation cannot feel like inferior people here, because there is no professional, career or social discrimination against them, by the way. And when they achieve great results, such as, for instance Elton John achieves, who is an extraordinary person, a distinguished musician, and millions of our people sincerely love him with no regard to his sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation does not affect attitudes to him, especially as to a distinguished musician.

I think that this quite democratic approach to people of non-traditional sexual orientation alongside with measures aimed to protect children and future demographic development is optimum.

Putin says:

People have different sexual orientation. We would welcome all athletes and all guests at the Olympics.

He also says protests against the new law are not illegal because they are not "propaganda of homosexuality itself or child sexual abuse."

I haven't been following the issue of Russia and gay rights, so I don't know whether Putin is being genuine or trying to spin the country's official position on gay rights. But I do think Russia's security will be adequate, and the games will be safe. For the athletes who have worked so hard to compete, I certainly hope so. It's hard to fathom what a terror group would gain from attacks on the Olympics other than the universal hatred of almost everyone around the world.

< Obama: Pot No More Dangerous Than Alcohol | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Some kind of incident (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:02:45 AM EST
    is bound to happen. Terrorist action is a demonstration of power. Some kind of civil disobedience, the same thing. Media attention is an irresistible lure for too many.

    The Attacks... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:54:18 AM EST
    ...as mentioned on the news this morning, would be strictly for revenge of the ongoing guerrilla war with Dagestan, which is the same issues Chechnya has with Russian.  Extremists in both states want to implement Sharia Law, but the majority of residents do not.  Russia is helping out the non-Muslims, most of whom are immigrants.

    Dear Vilayat Dagestan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    Now the world has firmly joined Russia in hunting you, this probably wasn't your most brilliant move if you wanted empathy from anyone.

    Mentally retarded men with guns (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    Most problems in the world can be traced to this phenomenon. I wish we would address it this way, as it would, also, address our own fundamentalist nutcases, who still maintain FAR too much power and prevent the USA as whole from evolving to its potential.

    Then again... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    ...much of our own military policies are formed by our own armed religious halfwits.

    Dadler, my friend (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    I must object to you calling these people mentally retarded.  The vast majority of intellectually handicapped people are much, much less likely to commit such atrocities and acts of terrorism than people with average, or above average, IQ's.
    Call this bunch and others like them what they are.  Fanatics.  Deluded fanatics.

    I deplore your subject line! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by the capstan on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:16:14 PM EST
    As the mother of a mentally retarded person, I definitely resent your implication that guns are (usually) wielded by the mentally retarded.  While some of the offending individuals may be of below average IQ (and certainly of less than optimal reasoning ability), they are not mentally retarded.  The term 'mentally retarded' used to have a specific definition--not unlike 'unable to walk.' Government did not do anyone any favor by promoting 'weasel words' instead of using terms that can be quantified.

    The truly mentally retarded person is apt to be anxious to please and to be friends.  They may, it is true, be manipulated into irrational acts--but they have no special affinity for guns.


    Exactly so, the capstan (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    Exactly so.

    Many apologies, my phrasing was horrible (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:05:00 PM EST
    I do not throw that term around, and I meant to use it here satirically, but bricked. Again, very sorry, my bad.

    I do, however, hate that the word "retardation" itself has sort of become sort of off limits, only because personally I think it adequately describes what happens to certain folk who CHOOSE to atrophy their own intellects, which is what I really meant to say, but I was crude. I shall use de-evolution in the future.


    Oy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    The non-apology apology.

    I am sorry (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:38:30 PM EST
    I am sorry. I was wrong. I should be much more aware and sensitive.

    Tracy, come on, I think I've proven to be a pretty decent cat. Here I was a schmuck. A huge, unadulterated schmuck who failed to appreciate the weight that word carries.

    You're right, tho. I equivocated. And I'm a dick for it. My personal love of a word that is so loaded, and I know it probably is for you too, will be completely trashed.

    Hope you're well, by the way. Miss your comments around here.


    It is possible (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:35:58 PM EST
    that Vilayat Dagestan thinks that thunder mouthed Greenwald will highlight human rights abuses that the Russians are committing in Dagestan! Who hasn't seen Glenn Greenwald go red in the face and scream about what Americans are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan (drones, drones, drones) while trying to ingratiate himself with politicians who support jihadists in those countries?

    Is Greenwald even going to Russia? Putin has promised that he can be safe there as long as he does not go near children (giving one the impression that Putin thinks that all gays are pedophiles). I never even heard a whimper of protest from Greenwald on this kind of bigotry and humiliation.

    Vilayat Dagestan will be very disappointed if they think that people like Greenwald, Snowden and Assange will empathize with them and argue their case on world television.


    Wow, that is some "it is possible" (3.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    you've dreamed up.  And then, you somehow find a way to damn Greenwald a little more by asking if he's even going to Russia.

    You're sounding a little like the kids at the table in the AT &T commercials ("Does the big pool have piranhas?" "Does it have a dinosaur that can turn into a robot and chop the water like a karate ninja?").

    Jesus.  It's possible Eleanor Roosevelt could fly: what would you take from that, I wonder?

    I will take "thunder-mouthed" Greenwald all day long over your increasingly incoherent and florid musings in which Glenn Greenwald, somehow, is six-or-fewer-degrees of separation from anything that could be considered remotely bad.

    You're starting to make jim sound less out-there with every one of your Greenwald-obsessed comments.


    Apparently Greenwald... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    ...will be held to the flame over every story he doesn't cover and the speculation as to why is limitless.

    I don't think that is what Pkix was (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:05:46 PM EST

    Interesting perspective (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 07:12:10 PM EST
    I had not looked at the situation in the light of the NSA revelations.

    How can they imagine that threatening the lives of everyone will be condoned by anyone though?


    Right Now... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    ...I would imagine all these meat-heads who were making ridiculous statements about Russia back in the Snowden day are realizing that was extremely stupid.  Now that we actually need some cooperation to make sure our athletes and citizens are safe.

    Not sure why you keep thinking they are trying to get sympathy, they aren't, they are extracting revenge for all 'their' people they feel that Russia killed.  Hence the black widows, whom were made windows by the Russian Army.

    They aren't asking for anything or trying to get people to understand their cause, it's past that, this is about making Russia pay.  And who knows if that means killing folks from other countries or just threatening it to make Russia look weak.


    Every successful terrorist org (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    Needs the sympathy of a people.  Even Osama had his run in with Zarqawi because Zarqawi's indiscriminate killing of Muslims was destroying the Al Qaeda brand.

    If they are really so stupid they don't need anyone's sympathies while they threaten the entire world...well...well they end up where they are now with the whole world committed to hunting them now.


    You Keep Saying That... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    ...but offer no proof, granted that is what generally drives, or is the goal of terrorism, but not in this case.  Their stated goal is to hurt Russian, Putin in particular.

    The world is not hunting them, no other country is in Russian rooting out terrorist at Chechnya/Dagestan border, least the US.

    You say they are stupid, which seems odd, when their stated goal is to hurt Russia, which they are clearly doing.  Unlike all the other Olympics, tickets for nearly every event are still available.

    Yet, with less than three weeks to go until the opening ceremony, hundreds of thousands of tickets remain unsold, raising the prospect of empty seats and a lack of atmosphere at Russia's first Winter Olympics.

    Fine (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    I haven't read every recent book and study of terrorism and its dynamics published.  You provide no evidence either, and I get tired of being questioned by individuals who possess nothing themselves....but okay...whatever

    They Have a Video Out... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    ...that has been in circulation since the weekend, it's been front page for days.  My bad.  LINK

    The video was posted on a Chechen extremist site. One of the men is quoted by ABC saying, "If [the Olympics] happens, we'll have a surprise for you. This is for all the Muslim blood that is shed every day around the world. ... This will be our revenge."

    Ditto for the black widows who are windows because their husbands were killed by the Russian Army.  LINK

    The term "black widow" refers to the belief that these women took the desperate step of becoming suicide bombers in order to avenge husbands or male relatives killed in Russia's long fight against Islamic militants in the Caucasus region.  Russian police leaflets circulating in the Olympic host city of Sochi say that one of the women suspected of planning an attack at the Winter Olympics is the widow of a militant.

    I have no idea what you are dragging (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    On about.  Jeralyn's story, this story, is about the video.  In the meantime, NATO is meeting about the security needs of Sochi now and Dempsey has offered our antiterrorism technology services to Russia and if you want to read those articles you are blessed with google too.  Wouldn't be surprised if China does not offer services as well.

    IMO though, the NATO community (and that includes us) and their existing structure to hunt terrorists is the last thing any terrorist wants looking for them.

    I think you just want to pick a fight and it is tiresome.  Don't like an opinion I post, just move on for Christ sake.


    Me Picking a Fight... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:01:45 AM EST
    ...if that is how you see it Tracy, let's clear it up.

    I am tiresome for posting the info you scolded me for not posting ?  Should I have posted the links or not ?

    And just to validate the other point, are you suggesting that your expertise is above reproach because you have read so many books about terrorism ?

    I want to make sure I understand what exactly what you are stating and what I did wrong.


    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    And I damn near have read every recent book and study on terrorism and the dynamics.  Not every single one, but almost.

    Well, this is certainly a correct statement (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    regarding the deceased Boston Marathon alleged bomber:

    The world is not hunting them, no other country is in Russian rooting out terrorist at Chechnya/Dagestan border, least the US.

    Sochi was a bad choice for a venue (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:44:42 PM EST
    Where's the McDonnell Thread? (none / 0) (#13)
    by obsessed on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    thought you guys'd be all over this

    lol; another day... another pol indicted. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:32:40 PM EST
    Does anyone (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    see the accusations as worse than what the Clinton's did while Bill was a governor?

    What I've read so far doesn't seem that different from the practices of many politicians. The scandal is that the Pols skate until they fall out of power for unrelated reasons.


    You mean Whitewater? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    Where an investigator submitted several criminal referrals and the US Attorney and FBI repeatedly said there was no there, there?  Where three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence to link either Clinton to criminal wrongdoing?  Where there was no indictment against either Clinton?  Where even Ken Starr couldn't find anything?

    No, this isn't anything like Bob and Maureen McDonnell and their alleged actions.


    Clintons had minions (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    loyal enough to go to jail for them, but they are never the less, just as dirty. Not just Whitewater, HRC had a "you can't lose" stock investment acct where margin calls were never made etc.

    Proof (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 04:44:17 PM EST
    is a good thing.

    Since the Clintons were investigated at the expense of tens of millions of dollars by multiple people who had strong personal reasons to want them indicted, and even they couldn't find anything, tells me that, no, this isn't anything like the McDonnell case.

    Governor McDonell was offered a plea deal in late December to plead guilty to one charge of bank fraud - unrelated to corruption charges - and that would have gotten his wife off the hook.

    He said no.

    And while this may not be the easiest case to prove against Bob McDonell, there are lots of things like text messages and emails - not just based on what someone said - that look very bad for Maureen McDonnell.

    Bet Maureen McDonnell wishes she was nicer to Executive Chef Todd Schneider.


    The "they all do it" defense (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    You'll need to be more specific.

    What is it you think the Clintons did while Bill was governor?


    OMG...you didn't really ask that, did you? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    Brace yourself - I'm sure there's a long list coming; it'll be like the Feast of Saint Limbaugh or something.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    the Feast of Saint Limbaugh

    No doubt ... gotta remember that one.  That's a classic.


    Ditto (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    Some People Forget... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    ...that the rest of humanity doesn't live in the right wing rabbit hole.

    But more importantly, what does the actions of a governor who has been out of office for over 20 years have to do with the one currently indicted ?

    I know, I know, false equivalency has no statute of limitations and Bill Clinton is still the GD devil.  

    Surprised they haven't tried to revived Rezko to deflect the fact that one of their own was indicted on federal corruption charges.


    We may never know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    the extent of the Clinton's corruption, but seems they left no stone unturned in serving themselves.

    Bill's highway patrol procurement pimps.

    Renting out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign donations.

    Selling a pardon for votes to get HRC a senate seat.

    I don't see "everybody does it" as any defense at all, but all of them should be punished, not just those out of political power to insulate themselves.


    Good Thing... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    ...right wing hackery isn't acceptable evidence in a court of law, and that actual evidence is.  The very reason one was indicted and one wasn't.

    "We may never know..." the last refuge of scoundrels who couldn't prove anything when this so called corruption actually happened, even with they held the House and the Senate.

    Back to the topic at hand, Bob McDonnell.


    A laundry list of lies (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    You never disappoint, though.

    If by "they all should be punished", you mean those that are guilty of actual crimes - as opposed to those who have been convicted in the rightwing, kangaroo court of conspiracy theories - we're in agreement.


    People in positions of power (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    should be held to a higher standard. Politicians are inherently slippery, and now we have a generation educated by the scoundrels that preceded them with legal advisers and loyal minions willing to do jail time rather than testify.

    Its just foolish to consider them innocent until proven guilty by conventional means. Something like the RICO statues needs to be used.

    Either that or its flat out true, compared to Obama, Nixon was not a crook, just lacking in minion loyalty willing to be thrown under the bus.


    The only part of your comment ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    ... that was true:

    People in positions of power should be held to a higher standard

    Its just foolish to consider them innocent until proven guilty by conventional means. Something like the RICO statues needs to be used.

    Either that or its flat out true, compared to Obama, Nixon was not a crook, just lacking in minion loyalty willing to be thrown under the bus.

    Whitewater was thoroughly investigated and - your delusional, conspiracy theories aside - three separate inquiries found that there wasn't even sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment, let alone a conviction.

    Many times where there's smoke, there's no fire.  Just wingnuts blowing smoke and yelling fire.

    The rest of your claims are, as always, baseless, evidence-free, delusional, fairy tales.


    Thoroughly? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    What saved the Clinton's bacon was Susan Mcdougal being willing to spend 18 months in prison rather than tell the truth about them. Bill returned the favor with a pardon.

    Another fairy tale (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    ... with no evidence to back it up.

    Curious, though ... your "unconventional means" that you suggest need to be applied.  Apart from RICO statutes (which weren't used because they don't apply), do your methods involve silly theories from the CTH and a crystal ball?


    "Foolish to consider them innocent (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    until proven guilty by conventional means."

    Did you have some unconventional means in mind?  

    And for what it's worth, I don't believe Nixon was any less a crook because you or anyone else is of the opinion that someone else is more of a crook.

    But I do find it rather disingenuous that somehow, when passing judgment on the relative crookedness of presidents, you seem to have skipped entirely the presidencies of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

    ::rolling eyes::


    RICO works against (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    organized crime, so maybe it would be a reasonable tool vs the politically powerful, but I would be OK with sunshine, expose the misdeeds so the general public can see them for the crooks they are.