The medals represent a combination of metal surface, patchwork designs, and a transparent pattern representing the icy slopes of the Caucasus Mountains. They were presented by Russian Olympic skating champion Svetlana Zhurova, who stressed how vital a medal is for sporting professionals. “For any athlete an Olympic medal is a precious gift which will stay with him or her throughout the years. The athlete may hide it in a secret place, but when you take it and look at it – you remember the victorious moments. I look at this Sochi-2014 medal here and understand that nobody will ever doubt the fact that this medal was won in Russia. All the codes, patterns of Russian tradition have been encrypted into this medal. There is ice and flight in this medal…” The Paralympic medals were made in a similar stylistic design, with its form set to represent the integrity and soul power of the Paralympic athletes. The medals were produced using an open tender among professional designers. Although there were international bids, it was a Russian team that won. The gold, silver and bronze medals, weigh between 460 and 531 grams. It takes 18 hours to produce each medal. According to the international standards, the medals aren’t produced of only precious metals. For instance, the Sochi 2014 gold medal has a golden surface with an alloy of different metals underneath. Almost 3kg of pure gold were used to cover all the golden medals set to be awarded to the Games’ event winners. The first ever Winter Olympics to be held in Russia run from February 7 to 23 in the southern city of Sochi. … Read More
Terrorist ‘military emir’ killed in Russia’s North Caucasus (PHOTOS)
Dzhamaleil Mutaliev, also known by the nickname ‘Adam,’ was killed in Nazran District of the North Caucasus Republic of Ingushetia on Tuesday. Mutaliev was believed to be a leading figure of the international terrorist group Imarat Kavkaz and the head of the region’s militant underground.Mutaliev was the so-called ‘military emir’ of the terrorist group, and was considered to be a close associate of Russia’s most-wanted terrorist Doku Umarov, and of deceased Chechen terrorist leader Shamil Basayev.The FSB said Mutaliev was “directly responsible for providing financial support and combat tools for the terrorists,” as well as for taking part in “organizing terrorists acts that caused large losses of human life.”He was believed to be one of the leaders behind a deadly car bomb blast in the central market of the North Ossetian city of Vladikavkaz, which kill 19 and injured over 200 in August 2010.The Russian security forces launched a counter-terror operation in Nazran Disctrict early Tuesday, after the FSB had learned that several militants are staying in a private home.After blocking off the area, the Spetsnaz (Russian Special Forces) started talks with the militants and persuaded them to let a woman and her infant out of the house.As soon as the woman got to safety, two armed men opened fire and attempted to flee the area, but were killed by return fire from Spetsnaz troops, NAC’s statement said, adding that no Spetsnaz or civilians were injured.Mutaliev and the other militant were armed with a hand-held grenade launcher, a Kalashnikov assault rifle, a pistol and makeshift grenades. The scene of the special operation is now being examined for explosives and underground hideout facilities.False reports of the warlord’s death emerged in January 2012, when the ‘military emir’ was thought to be killed in another special operation. DNA tests later revealed that the militant killed in 2012 was not Mutaliev. … Read More
US anti-terror policy ‘creates hundreds of new enemies’
Arguably the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam believes the US authorities greatly underestimate the tribal nature of most of the Muslim societies in their war on terror. RT: Post 9/11 the US has been all over the map chasing terrorists. But then you see terror growing right here in the US in a well-educated area like Cambridge Massachusetts, referring to the Boston bombers. What slipped through the cracks in America’s understanding of terror?Dr. Akbar Ahmed: This is a new phenomenon and a challenge. When people say home-grown terrorism it really means Muslim youth – those who grew up in the US and have turned against the US. I believe that several causes are to be identified. You have the problem of youth growing up in a culture, not of their own. Many of these people are from the Middle East, south Asia or, in the case of the Boston bombers, from the Caucasus. They grow up in a culture, which sort of accepts them and sort of doesn’t.RT: But by so many accounts they did fit in.AA: As I said, they fit on one level, but on the other level they don’t. They are hearing around them so much talk of islamophobia, someone attacks their religion, Koran, not necessarily on the religious level. So their response isn’t necessarily an Islamic response, but also a cultural one. The same phenomenon can be seen in the UK where you have many of these young British-born Muslims being accepted, playing cricket, going to pubs and so on, and yet being involved in terrorism. There aren’t many such cases, but these cases, I believe, are consequences of several failures of society, which is unable to integrate them fully, and their own community not being able to detect who they are and give them a certain direction. RT: Apparently Tamerlan Tsarnaev didn’t fit into FBI’s profile of who would be a jihadist. Can we talk about the danger of profiling in law enforcement?AA: I was in charge of law and order myself in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in Balochistan, which is one of the most difficult areas to administer. We were taught when the cat is about to jump and when it will jump. When you profile people broadly, for example all Middle East-looking people, and you only look at them then your mentality is that a blue-eyed or blond-haired cannot be a terrorist. But as we know terrorism comes in every form and every shape. We’ve had many terror attacks in the US by people who weren’t Muslim. Timothy Mcveigh is just one famous example of that. So the aim is to prevent violence whoever commits it.RT: Why do those people, many of them presumably well-read and educated, find what they find in Islam?AA: First, the assumption that education means a person is compassionate, sensible, pluralist or inclusive is not really correct. Secondly, what is coming from Islam is equally not correct. Perhaps the most terrible example in history is what the Germans did to the Jewish community in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. From 25 to 30 percent of SS personnel were PhDs or had higher education decrees. Where did that leave their humanity? They were completely unsympathetic to the Jewish community. So we have to be very careful making these generalizations. Very often these people act as they do, which is completely unacceptable, they come out of their own broken societies and distort the understanding of Islam.RT: What difference have drones, the new US tool for fighting terrorists, really made?AA: In my opinion the debate around drones has just started. There is one side of the debate, which is the most problematic, and that is how the Americans see the usefulness of drones. What they don’t see is an impact drones are having across the world on local tribes, local communities. You may have 1, 2, 3 intended targets killed, the so-called bad guys, but then you have 100, 200, 300 completely innocent people killed including women, and children. There are many reports confirming this. That creates hundreds of new enemies.RT: It seems that the main point of discussions around drones was whether or not they should kill American citizens. The fact it could kill innocent people without due process remained sidelined. What was your impression?AA: My sense was that the Americans were very ethnocentric when dealing with this issue. They aren’t really connecting this to people across the world, who are being killed in drone strikes. But I’m sure that this debate will continue. The Americans have great social conscience. If you pick up an idea and they feel there is injustice they pick it up themselves and they go for it. But right now this isn’t happening. Also we have to understand that when you have a place like Waziristan, which is the focus of my book. A small place, really impoverished, tribal society, no hospitals, no roads, no education facilities, and you are hit with drones again and again. They’ve ended up by killing over 300 people in drone attacks in Waziristan alone. Think about the impact it could have on a small society. It just rips it apart. In that vacuum you will certainly have violent angry killers, as you call, who then go down to Karachi and other bigger cities and blow themselves up. Once they killed a ten year old boy, a Pakistani army officer, in a mosque. They killed him and said ‘Now you know how we feel and what we go through every day’.RT: In your book ‘The Thistle and the Drone’ you write how the US props up central governments, which then go out and fight tribes. It’s true for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. Is it because the US doesn’t understand tribal society or just doesn’t want to understand? AA: The war on terror, as I see it, resembles a triangle. I call it a ‘triangle of terror’. You have the US at one point, you have the central government at another point and the third point is tribal society. So far in the discussion we don’t hear much about the tribal society. Very often we see the US and central governments in alliance, but what they don’t realize, and this is a very important point, that terrorist are coming out of societies, which have nothing to do with supporting them. In fact, they are the victims now – they’ve been killed by the drones, by their own armies, and they’ve been blown up by suicide bombers. Tribal society lies underneath a vast number of Muslim population from Morocco across North Africa to the Middle East and to the Caucasus. The Code of honor, the code of hospitality, the code of revenge – all these things are very important and defining these societies. Not so much Islam but the tribal code. And there you have a kind of an internal tension, which hasn’t been resolved after centuries.RT: The Pakistani government condemns the US strikes in very strong terms but at the same time allows them. That kind of a two-faced policy, is it sustainable?AA: No, it isn’t. I called it duplicities in my book. On the one hand they are telling the Pakistani people that they have nothing to do with that. On the other hand they align with Americans to go ahead with the drone strikes. The Pakistani PM has many times said that he would object to it, that he would go to parliament and say that the Americans shouldn’t do these terrible things. But he goes ahead with that. The people of Pakistan aren’t stupid. They understand the game. But again you ask yourself does it help law and order, does it help peace and stability, and does it help check the men of violence? And the answer is ‘No’.RT: Why isn’t Pakistan saying the real ‘No’?AA: I think it’s because they have a weak government. They want to stay in power. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say to a superpower ‘Guys, we are your friends, but you are messing it up for us’.RT: Afghanistan past 2014, is it going to move back to the rule by tribes?AA: That’s a very important question. I asked someone who lived there and worked with the tribes. The country is going to face a lot of challenges both internally and regionally.RT: If the structure of their society is tribal maybe it’s a natural way for them to go back to tribal society?AA: Don’t forget what happened to Afghanistan in the last few decades. First, there was the Soviet invasion, which disrupted all the old structures – chiefs, the elders, the religious structure, the central government, the King of Afghanistan. So you have a tribal society in a state of destruction. Then 1990s with the Taliban, which brought even more disruption. Then you have 9/11 and the American invasion with more disruption. Three decade later this tribal society is different, the tribal code has mutated, Islam has mutated. And from those mutations you see violence, violence, violence. … Read More
Tamerlan Tsarnaev had links to slain radical militants: Russian newspaper
One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings had made links with two figures in the Islamist anti-Kremlin insurgency in the Northern Caucasus, both of whom were killed by Russian security forces, a security source said Monday. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was himself killed…
Mother of Boston bomb suspects berates US authorities
Related
CIA and FBI were warned about Boston bomb suspect 25/04/2013 15:35 CET
Watertown residents recall lockdown drama 22/04/2013 19:05 CET
Boston bombing suspect remains in hospital 21/04/2013 06:05 CET
FBI seeks motive for Boston bomb attack 21/04/2013 13:35 CET
Russian analyst explores Boston suspects’ Caucasus… 20/04/2013 00:14 CET
The parents of the Boston suspects have denied that their sons planted the bombs, believing they were framed.
Appearing together in the Russian region of Dagestan, their father Anzor Tsarnaev said he planned to travel to America this week, while their mother attacked the US authorities.
“They told us that they’re never gonna show us Dzhokhar, even if we go there, until he will be in their jail, we won’t be able to see him,” Zubeidat Tsarnaeva said, referring to her wounded younger son who is still in hospital and has been charged over the bombings. “They are already saying that we are terrorists. They already want me, him (indicating her ex-husband), and all of us to look as terrorists,” she added.
Media reports the mother faces an outstanding shoplifting charge in Boston from last year and could face arrest if she returns.
She told reporters she regretted the family had ever moved to the US.
“I thought America was going to protect us, our kids, was going to be safe… But it happened opposite. America took my kids away from me,” she said in English, breaking down in tears.
American congressmen have said they do not believe the brothers had contact with a militant organisation. But in Moscow, President Putin used a nationwide TV phone-in to argue the Boston bombing justified Russia’s tough line on insurgents in the North Caucasus.
He said Moscow and Washington should step up cooperation on security:
“Russia is a victim of international terrorism, one of the first victims. This tragedy should bring us closer together, in stopping the threats we have in common, the most dangerous being terrorism,” said the Russian leader.
Putin, who crushed a Chechen bid for independence over a decade ago, has long accused the US of underestimating the Islamist threat.
More about: Attack, Boston, Chechnya, Terrorism, USA
Copyright © 2013 euronews
JavaScript is required in order to view this article’s accompanying video
‘FBI incompetent to ignore Russia’s warning over Chechen brothers’
“You had two people flagged up by Russia, you spent billions of dollars on anti-terrorism. How then did two guys get under the radar after they were pointed out? … The US authorities have something to answer for. It’s not like the brothers were not known to the FBI, they were known,” Baig said. He adds that it may have also been that the US authorities thought that the Tsarnaevs were only a threat to Russia, not the US.“I think that it could be looked at a number of levels. It could be gross incompetence of the FBI, just not paying attention to this and not taking the threat seriously. Or it could have been they thought that these guys are not a threat to the US, they are a treat to Russia. “RT: How would you explain this switch in how Chechen fundamentalists are described?Assed Baig: The switch is quite normal for the US. They’ve done it throughout history. For example in Afghanistan, those who were fighting against the Soviet occupation of the country were seen as freedom fighters, now the same people are called terrorists. This fits in with the US agenda. Anyone that the US backs in their war, in the US agenda, they are considered freedom fighters. And anyone who is against the US is seen as terrorists, or fundamentalists…RT: In 2004, U.S. authorities granted asylum to Chechen extremist, Ilyas Akhmedov, despite warnings from Russia – why was the U.S. so reticent in recognizing the North Caucasus terrorist threat?AB: I don’t know the individuals particularly, so I cant say whether they are extremists or not. If you look at the US policy generally, they are happy to grant asylum to anyone who fits in their agenda. So let’s look at Cuban dissidents, for example. Anyone who committed terrorist attacks in Cuba, or against a Cuban regime they are welcomed in the US, mainly living in Miami. They are not questioned and granted asylum. Russia and America have not had a great relationship! So what happened in Chechnya and the Caucasus there is seen as Russia’s problem. As long as people were against Russia that was ok with the US.RT: Russia reportedly got in touch with the U.S. in 2011 warning that the older Tsarnaev brother had radical Islamist links, but the FBI found nothing suspicious. How could that happen?AB: Let me put it this way. If the Syrian government got in contact with America and said ‘look, there are Syrians in your country that we think are radical extremists’, would the FBI take it seriously? I think that it could be looked at a number of levels. It could be gross incompetence of the FBI, just not paying attention to this and not taking the threat seriously. Or it could have been they thought that these guys are not a threat to the US, they are a threat to Russia.RT: But how is it possible that attacks like this happened in a nation that spends billions on its national security?AB: The answers may come out in the coming weeks or months. It could be gross incompetence or not taking the threat seriously and again it could be not understanding it. There are many different groups in Chechnya. There is no way to justify anything that Russia, human rights abuses or not…But you had two people flagged up by Russia, you spent billions of dollars on anti-terrorism. How then did two guys didn’t get under the radar after they were pointed out?! People are coming up with theories, its not my job to say which one’s right or not. But the US authorities have something to answer for. Its not like the brothers were not know to the FBI, they were known. … Read More
‘Political groups in Washington downplayed Chechen threat’
The director of studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation also believes that Washington has intentionally portrayed some of the international terrorist groups as freedom fighters could set a wrong example to young Americans.RT: There’s been talk of a Chechen connection in this case – but both brothers had lived in the U.S. for almost a decade – could they have been radicalized while living in America?John Laughland: It seems definitely to be the case. I would stress that one of the suspects is dead and the other one can’t speak, so I think we need to be a little careful before accepting at face value the narrative of the Boston police, which of course is under massive pressure to find the guilty person. And we need to bear in mind that the American justice system, like everyone else’s system in the world, is based on the presumption of innocence. But if the police narrative is correct then yes, they have become radicalized not only while on American soil, but also while under at least some kind of surveillance by the FBI. The journalist’s comment now is pointing on negligence on the part of the FBI.RT: In 2004, US authorities granted asylum to Chechen extremist, Ilyas Akhmedov, despite warnings from Russia. Why has the US failed to recognize the threat posed by North Caucasus terrorist groups?JL: I don’t know. The question now is was it incompetent. That’s the primary line of questioning in the media. I’m afraid there might be another line of questioning. I don’t want to put forward any suggestions for which I have no basis. But I’m afraid in the history of the world there are examples of countries tolerating or encouraging terrorist attacks on their own territory for political reasons. I repeat I have no proof at all that this is the case in this example, but history unfortunately does give us precedents for such cynical activity. And the fact is, that whatever the truth is about these brothers there has been a long history of American particularly neo-conservative friendship towards and support for the Chechen rebels in general at the time of the Beslan massacre, for example, the blame on the American media was put exclusively on Russia – not on the Chechens themselves.RT: Do you think that at the end of the day the US has failed to recognize the threat posed by the North Caucasus terrorist groups?JL: I definitely think that. It’s absolutely certain that political groups in Washington have downplayed the Chechen threat. And they have instead portrayed them more or less as freedom fighters. The suggestion I’m putting to you now is that their maybe even more than that to it. It can be to the advantage of certain powers that a terrorist attack be committed on American soil. And I think that line of questioning at least should be opened at the moment until we have further information. RT: The U.S. has shown staunch support for rebel groups in Syria and in Libya, even portraying them in a romanticized light – doesn’t this send the wrong signals to young Americans?JL: Undoubtedly, as you’ve suggested in your question. The rebels in Syria, who are overwhelmingly Islamists are themselves being portrayed as democracy freedom fighters in the western media. That is going to give a bad massage and it is going to encourage certain people to be radicalized. I can’t help raising in my mind the question of whether there is not a more domestic motive for this, because after all in the case of Syria there is a network, an armed force of rebels. In this case it seems that the attack was not part of any larger armed uprising. There is no armed insurrection in Boston. In that sense the attack is senseless. It only makes sense or might be considered to make sense as a pretext for further clampdowns on civil liberties in America and for further war supposedly against Islamists abroad. … Read More
