Anatoly el murid. The evolution of el murid from a jingoist to an all-scavenger. Independent expert at ANNA-News
One of the main defenders in the Russian network of “saint Strelkov” and “righteous Borodai” from the “ungodly sect of Kurginyan’s supporters.” What's your impression? Well, something like this:
In general, I sat “like in Turkey”...
With a "creative heritage" el_murid Everything has been clear to everyone for a long time. We all swam there - we know. One of the few biographical information about the client states:
He was repeatedly caught publishing analytical materials copied from a number of popular sites and passing them off as “author’s”.
This is absolutely true. An example of this type of plagiarism is usually the material about Yemen, which was once located at this address (now deleted):
http://el-murid.livejournal.com/256334.html
The original can be viewed here:
http://obsrvr.livejournal.com/1240254.html
Apparently, for this reason, the archive of our client’s blog was thoroughly cleaned and all posts written before 2012 were completely removed from it. There is nothing to compare with. Therefore, the factual basis for convicting a famous blogger of plagiarism and ideological unscrupulousness is completely absent today.
Well, what can I say? Well done!
Concluding a very brief review " creative heritage» el_murid , I note that the strongest gag reflex in me was caused by public showdowns el_murid and his wife ani_al with another equally famous blogger putnik1 regarding the kidnapping of famous journalist Ankhar Kochneva in Syria anhar .
Well, creativity is creativity, but the peculiarities of El-Murid’s biography caused me the greatest bewilderment. We all remember well that for quite a long time even the name of this Internet character was made into a riddle. Two very scanty and wretched biographical information about him that appeared on Wikipedia were quickly and decisively removed.
But you and I remember well that manuscripts don’t burn, especially on the Internet. I managed to find both of these certificates - they were carefully preserved by El-Murid’s “well-wishers”:
Salman Bulgarsky (real name - Airat Vakhitov) was born on January 4, 1980. He studied at the Wahhabi madrasah "Yoldyz" (Tatarstan), worked as an imam at the Naberezhnye Chelny mosque "Tauba". In 1999-2001 was on the territory of Afghanistan, fought in the ranks of the Bulgarian Jamaat (an association of Wahhabis from the Volga region) as part of the Taliban troops. In 2002-2003 was in the American prison at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). In 2004, upon his return to Russia, he continued to conduct propaganda for the construction of a caliphate through the Internet, posting his video sermons (these years were the era of mass accessibility of the Internet). In 2005, he participated in a terrorist attack on a gas pipeline in Bugulma (a city in the southeast of Tatarstan). Later he leaves for Afghanistan. Since 2011, he has been in Syria in the ranks of the “Tatar Brigade” (“Kataib Muhajirin”), which is a Wahhabi gang fighting against the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad. The main recruiter of volunteers via the Internet from Tatarstan for “jihad” in Syria.
After getting acquainted with all these materials, Murid’s hidden support for Islamist militants in Syria is no longer surprising.
What's the end result? As a result, due to the carefully cultivated image of a modest Russian intellectual in an intellectual sweater and glasses, the image of a terry propagandist closely associated with Islamist, Vlasov and Nazi circles clearly emerges.
P.S. In response to this post, citizen Nesmiyan burst out with a very lengthy and rather nervous comment (see in the comments). My response to El-Murid contains several important clarifications to the main text, so I quote it here:
Anatoly, remember from Pushkin:
"Pleasantly impudent epigram
Enrage a mistaken enemy;
It's nice to see how stubborn he is
Bowing my eager horns,
Involuntarily looks in the mirror
And he is ashamed to recognize himself;
It’s more pleasant if he, friends,
He will howl foolishly: it’s me!”
I never expected to see you in the role of this character in front of the mirror. And where else? In my LiveJournal...
You write: “I repeat, I do not deliberately believe and do not intend to refute anything or anyone.”
Why then did you come to the LiveJournal of an unknown blogger? Why did you devote a rather large text of your commentary almost entirely to refuting some facts of your biography that are not mentioned at all in my text?
This means that something in my text really caught your attention, and you are now trying to divert the readers’ attention from this (the main thing) to petty squabbles and gossip.
You know, I am deeply indifferent to the circumstances of your personal life, the number of your wives and children, how many times you have been tried and what you eat for dinner. I am deeply disgusted by the showdown between your family and Vershinin. My post is not about this at all, and you understood this perfectly.
The main thing is your position on Libya (but they have already written a lot about it in detail without me, and there are no texts about the war in Libya for 2011 in the archive of your LiveJournal). The main thing is your unclear position on Syria (you chose not to notice the link to its analysis). The main thing is my questions about your trip to Donetsk (which I asked based on the content of your interview). And I’m not at all interested in what you stole there and how you were pinched for it. I, and many other LJ readers, are interested in who and how this trip was organized (in modern times, this is a whole special operation) and why Mr. Girkin (Strelkov) communicated with you so confidentially? It would also be interesting to know (you talk about this in the interview) how Strelkov’s people organized a meeting for you with a Ukrainian army officer fighting against the DPR. In war conditions, this strongly smacks of betrayal...
But you didn’t say anything about all this and I don’t think you will say anything - these are not convenient topics for you. Instead, you chose to discuss watered-down beer, which I didn't say anything about at all.
And one last thing. You have no reason to accuse me of lying - for any information given in the post, I give, unlike you, by the way, a link to the source. You yourself write: “This is my personal blog. If I want, I’ll look for the cats, if I want, I’ll express different thoughts.” So I wanted to refer to some information published by Vershinin. This particular information seemed very plausible to me. I’m gullible (what can you do) - sometimes I believe people.
Anatoly Nesmiyan speaks out about his perception of Putin’s speech in Valdai.
Since Nesmiyan really has a sect on his blog - he allows comments only to carefully selected friends (he has a clear marker, everyone who leaves comments on him must be personally loyal to him) I decided to briefly tell you on my blog what I think about his text .
First of all, I decided to separate the flies from the cutlets from Murid.
The “flies” there are Anatoly’s emotional rantings. Cutlets are already the essence of what Murid writes about. 80% of his emotional rants about nothing turned out to be. There is nothing to comment on them and I will omit them. There is nothing to discuss there except the author’s emotional perception of Putin. This perception is Anatoly’s problem.
I also found “cutlets”. Anatoly tried to justify why he didn’t like it. Unlike Anatoly, my answer to him will not be based on water and emotions, but will go clearly point by point.
1) He didn’t like it that in the event of a nuclear attack on Russia, the aggressor must know that retaliation is inevitable, that he will be destroyed in the event of a nuclear attack on Russia
Murid writes:
- Putin was stuck somewhere seventy to a hundred years ago, when the war looked like the total destruction of the enemy. Modern threats look fundamentally different than they did 100-70 or even 50 years ago, and if you pour resources into a strategy that no longer works, then you simply squander them, especially in conditions when you have simply stolen a significant part of them.
Nuclear weapons still restrain the parties from an all-out war with conventional weapons. Therefore, the arsenal of possibilities remains either low-intensity conflicts, ala butting heads in Syria, or hybrid wars (inciting neighboring countries into conflict, sanctions, economic pressure).
Modern threats look TOO DIFFERENT. Everything cannot be reduced to hybrid wars. And Putin’s talk about nuclear deterrence is just one of the special cases of such a war. Sometimes it’s worth reminding that there are boundaries and if the enemy crosses them, we are ready and able to react
Murid can splash saliva or anything else as much as he wants, but the facts prove that he is wrong. And he can be as emotional as he wants.
Murid writes:
- Putin, waging two local wars, failed to demonstrate in them anything not only outstanding, but even worthy in terms of level
Well, firstly, I counted only one war - in Syria against terrorist groups.
Secondly, is the task completed? Not completely, but more than enough - the remnants of the militants have been eliminated either in Idlib or around the American An-Tanaf base. The Syrian authorities are already able to finish off terrorist groups themselves.
Russia came at a time when Damascus was ready to fall at the feet of the winner - international terrorism, behind which stood more senior curators and financiers.
What are we seeing now? Damascus' power has been restored over the vast majority of the country. Yes, by agreement with the Turks, the north was under their control, the Americans took the Kurds under their patronage. But:
A) there is no longer a threat to the country's statehood - the armed forces have been restored;
b) The integral territoriality of the country was restored - Aleppo and Palmyra were liberated, the long-term siege of Deir ez-Zor was unblocked (despite the assistance of American aviation to ISIS terrorists), numerous areas and pockets under the control of militants were liberated. Their remains were taken to the Idlib Zoo, where these spiders are trying to sort things out among themselves:
V) Syrian citizens are largely protected from terrorist attacks. Compared to what it was, the threats have decreased by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
G) Syrian air defense has been established, albeit creakingly, and is now capable of fighting air threats even without the help of the Russians. But the Russians will still stand nearby.
End of 2015
In Syria, Russia also decided on its geopolitical interests:
A) supported an important ally
b) most importantly, Russia prevented the spread of terrorism beyond Syria. Radicals, after victory in the country, would look for new areas of application of their activities. And first of all, it would be the southern regions of Russia and the Central Asian republics in the underbelly of Russia, and secondly, a wave of attacks and terrorist attacks would begin in major cities Russia. All this was stopped there in Syria
V) Russia has worked many modern views weapons.
- for the Americans, the power of Russian electronic warfare, “Caliber”, turned out to be a complete revelation;
- the first combat use was carried out by the Su-35, the first combat use was carried out by strategic aviation, Russian aviation held American F-22s in sight, almost the entire personnel of the Aerospace Forces went through a “run-in” through Syria;
- the fleet received such “exercises” that in practice they would not have been able to organize in simple life;
- new and promising (including robotic) weapons systems have been tested in real combat conditions. The use of modern technology in combat conditions showed in which direction it should be improved;
- Russian armed forces in practice and in “stress mode” the issues of target designation, target destruction,
- combat tactics of fighter, attack, and army aviation have been improved;
- in practice (albeit standing on the sidelines) they studied methods of countering American massive missile attacks. The conflict in Syria has shown how and in which direction Russia should improve its air defense system and electronic warfare systems;
G) Russia is entrenched in this the most important region world - the entire Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean are nearby. They are firmly attached and can no longer be knocked out. And this will force the enemy to take seriously Russian state on a huge range of geopolitical issues.
2) Murid didn’t like the words
Murid writes:
- Putin wisely did not mention who is preventing the Putin regime from instilling what is reasonable, good, and eternal.
And this is the first time massacre in Russian schools for decades.
Before this, there were attacks by teenagers with knives or axes. And one attack was with a firearm - in February 2014, a 10th grade student at school No. 263 in the Otradnoe district (Moscow) shot his teacher. The victims were limited to this.
Since there is no mass scale, it means that these processes can be restrained. Despite the presence of inadequacies that exist in ANY society.
But of course, we cannot be complacent and stop keeping our finger on the pulse. It is worth drawing conclusions from each case. The latest case speaks to the need to tighten the issuance of permits for firearms, especially in 18. You say - they issue them in the army? But the army is not that case. Moreover, a soldier will never go to school to shoot. And in civilian life, the minimum age at which you can purchase firearms and ammunition should be 21 years old.
And I’ll summarize a little about Anatoly.
I’ve been following his blog for how many years, but his analytics, forecasts and reflections have NEVER come true (if I missed something, correct me and give me a link). Although even according to the theory of probability he should be “in the weather forecast” at least once, but this does not work out either.
The only thing in which he has at least slightly succeeded is in the inside information that he sometimes obtains (I assume - probably thanks to his knowledge of the Arabic language) on public pages, forms and tweets of militants. No more. No, this work is also important, of course, but El-Murid has no other achievements. And even more so, you should not rely on his emotions, forecasts and so-called analytics. It never comes true.
in Yandex.Zen. Will you like it there?
Subscribe on my First Zen Channel
Subscribe on my Second Zen Channel
I just read El Murid’s post about Crimea. He says that his annexation was a terrible mistake because it disrupted the strategic situation in the entire Black Sea region.
Oh, fathers! How dare we?
The prelude to our obscene behavior was the recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
« Until 2008, the principle was strictly observed - not a single unrecognized conflict territory (Transnistria, Karabakh, Chechnya) was recognized as independent, each conflict was purely internal matter the relevant state. This did not exclude interstate conflicts, but at least it did not go to the level of changing general principles. Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia destroyed the principles on which the stability of the post-Soviet space was based. From that moment on, a precedent was created recognizing the possibility of changing the state borders of the former Soviet republics without their consent».
At the same time, El Murid reports that he is not going to touch upon the issue of justice.
But in vain, because this is the key question here. Is it fair that the Ossetians - one small people - do not have the right to reunification? How long can you torture them?
Didn't the collapse of Yugoslavia disrupt anything?
On February 17, 2008, the Kosovo Parliament declared Kosovo's independence unilaterally. Italy. On February 18, Kosovo's independence was recognized by Afghanistan and Taiwan. Then France did it. On the same day, Kosovo's independence was recognized in the United States. At the same time, Spain, as well as Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, China and Russia, opposed the recognition of the region’s independence. On February 19, 2008, Bulgaria changed its mind and announced that it would recognize Kosovo's sovereignty in the future. On February 20, Germany also recognized the sovereignty of Kosovo.
On December 1, 2009, hearings began at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice recognized the legality of the decision of the Kosovo authorities to declare independence from Serbia.
From the point of view of Serbia and the states that did not recognize the secession, the status of Kosovo is this moment- an autonomous region of Serbia that unilaterally declared its independence.
At the informal CIS summit in Moscow on February 22, 2008, Putin said the following:
"The Kosovo precedent is a terrible precedent. He essentially hacks the entire system international relations, which has developed not even over decades, but over centuries. And, without any doubt, it can entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences. Those who recognize the independence of Kosovo do not calculate the results of what they are doing, the Russian President believes. Ultimately, this is a double-edged sword, and the second stick will hit them in the head someday».
So who was the first to create a precedent for recognizing the possibility of changing the state borders of the former Soviet republics without their consent? What comes first for us: February or August?
Putin does nothing that the West allows itself to do.
It is curious that Murid considers himself a great analyst and military expert, but back in March 2014 he did not think that Russia would annex Crimea, he believed that it would have a status like Transnistria.
Here's what he wrote in March:
« By 78 votes out of 80, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted a resolution on joining Russia. It appears that this decision is not dictated from Moscow - rather, we are talking about the fact that it is dictated from Kyiv and is connected with the ongoing transformation of Ukraine into a terrorist Bandera state».
Next, El Murid really wanted Russia to annex Donbass, and now, look how he changed his shoes!
God be with him, with El Murid. Let's remember 1991, the collapse of the USSR along internal borders. It was a terrible decision, completely voluntary. Why did it take a long time at first to agree on the new borders of the new states?
But because then everyone was sure that the former republics of the USSR would join a united Europe, and there would be a Europe from Gibraltar to Vladivostok. And from this point of view, what difference does it make who formally owns Crimea?
We believed that we were voluntarily and consciously returning to the European family of nations.
Why did we think so? This is a mystery.
In fact, our opinion was not stupid. Europe's behavior was and is stupid.
Every year we see more and more Muslims, blacks, Chinese, and Hindus in Europe. Soon these waves will drown her. But if Europe had allowed post-Soviet countries into the EU, this would not have happened.
Together we could represent a real political, military or any force.
But the old stereotypes came into play: Russians are scary.
Well, let's disappear together to the joy of smarter and luckier peoples.
This morning, having opened the LiveJournal of Anatoly Nesmiyan, known as El Murid, found a screenshot of my text in the comments thread.
http://el-murid.livejournal.com/3121172.html#comments 
We were talking about Nelly Rafikovna, Anatoly’s wife (according to rumors) and part-time his “administrator”.
As you know, Nelly (or Nailya) has long been raging in the comments to his posts. She behaves rudely and bans everyone who disagrees with her “authoritative” opinion, which scares off readers.
Hu from Nelly (Naila) and what does she want?
Psychopathic personalities are always difficult to fit into any framework; they are unpredictable and act impulsively, guided by emotions.
But if you look at who remains among El Murid’s commentators, these are people who blame Putin for all the troubles, and consider Strelkov a coward who fled the Donbass. In this they are no different from Putinists or Maydowns.
At the same time, El Murid’s audience is very intelligent. Most of his readers simply stopped leaving comments, the rest carefully select their words, but still come across insults from the moderator.
A few facts about Nelly Rafikovna.
1. Dries for Igor Ivanovich.
Despite the fact that now trolls, gays, Jews and other rascals will carry my words across the Internet, I will say: I have never been a fan of Igor.
Firstly, because I never become a fan of anyone, which gives me the opportunity to critically evaluate a person’s actions.
Secondly, the one who beats his forehead through the word of some monarch and sings psalms after every squat is not my hero.
Thirdly, in social issues the Strelok does not rule. From the word - in general.
In war, perhaps he is a genius, but when it comes to the flow of social gatherings, waving at someone who needs them, imposing the line of behavior that is expected of you and avoiding all this - in this he is a layman.
Not only is he a layman, he is also a stubborn idiot (pardon me), who will insist on his own until his horns hit the gate like a ram and is convinced that the next rake under the number 5897054231 fits safely into the lobeshnik.
And if he continues to do what he is doing, then I will personally put a big, thick cross on him.
2. Jealous of his young wife.
“A young wife is harmful to health, I’m telling you this as a woman.” ani_al
3. Doesn't like Vladimir Putin.
4. Doesn't like to argue.
He always loses in arguments. And trolls and psychopaths are mentally unbalanced, as we know, the most right-wing people in the world.
5. Doesn't like Jews.
Calls them Zhydami, but Article 282 does not threaten her, since she herself is a “multinational”.
6. Considers herself an atheist.
For a person born in a Muslim republic, this is akin to a “feat”, but in her case it is an ordinary protest.
7. Adheres to left-wing views.
But not a communist, but on her own mind.
8. Sexually unsatisfied.
Therefore, the only source of orgasm is the opportunity to ban the next reader of El Murid’s blog.
Tomorrow at 18:00 GMT (+4 Moscow time) Trump is scheduled to make a statement regarding the Iran nuclear deal. It can already be said that France and Great Britain will not revise it, emphasizing the need to monitor the agreement. The Europeans have not only political, but also purely economic interests related to both the supply of Iranian oil and their own projects on Iranian territory, so they will break agreements with it only for a very serious reason, which has not yet arisen. However, the United States and Israel, apparently, will not interfere.
Moreover: in the coalition’s fight against pro-Iranian Shiite proxy groups, the Europeans are already taking part in military clashes, in particular, the French literally today launched artillery strikes on a concentration of Shiite formations on the left bank of the Euphrates. In general, the policy of the Europeans will be allied to the Americans in any situation, although they certainly will not agree to sever relations with Iran. At least for now.
Trump, as you can understand, will make his statement according to two possible scenarios: tough and relatively neutral. The neutral one will consist of relatively abstract threats and support for Israel, but for now Trump will not denounce the “six” agreement with Iran in this scenario. A tougher option would include acknowledging Iran's deception and demanding tighter controls. All this will be presented in the form of an ultimatum, where the threat will be to break the contract or revise any part of it. Iran will certainly refuse, and then Trump will have to make a final decision.
One way or another, the future of a possible Israeli operation against Iranian military infrastructure in Syria and the intervention of Arab League countries in the east of the country will depend on Trump’s decision tomorrow. Almost everything is ready for both, and Trump himself called for all this from Israel and the Arab League. It will be quite difficult for Trump to give back.
Moreover, there is no analogy with North Korea. Both Trump and Kim were raising the stakes ahead of the inevitable proposal for future negotiations, so the United States had a very good reason to abandon the military scenario in favor of diplomacy. Now this option is excluded: previously, diplomats did everything possible, the agreement was signed, withdrawal from the agreement does not mean a settlement, but a confrontation.
In general, the situation is quite tough, the solution space is small. The situation is quite delicate in the sense that the prospects are not entirely clear. On the other hand, a war (or at least a conflict) between Israel, the Arab League and Iran is a pressing issue. Now it can be resolved on the periphery - on the territory of a third country. IN in this case- Syria and Yemen. The situation here and there has deteriorated so much that there are no countries as such there anymore, there are only territories where external forces are sorting out relations with each other. However, if the conflict is delayed, in a few years it may well move to the territory of either Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Israel. And this is a completely different story, and completely different consequences.
The choice facing Trump only seems simple - in reality it is a question of the intensity of the future conflict. For now, he can get by with “little bloodshed,” although this will be little consolation for pro-Iranian groups in Syria. However, the problem is that if the parties delay the conflict, having no prospects for resolving it through diplomatic means, in a few years it will move to a fundamentally different level. And it is unlikely that this is not understood in the States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran itself.
Here is just a classic case when no one wanted war, it was inevitable. the whole question is where, when and how serious the future war will become.