El murid. El Murid and wayward Russia El Murid Facebook

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 overview of the “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 took part 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 a lot has already been written 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 haven’t said anything about all this and I don’t think you will say anything – these are not topics that are convenient 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.

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”.

Well, what can I say? Well done!

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”:

After getting acquainted with all these materials, Murid’s hidden support for Islamist militants in Syria is no longer surprising.

Anatoly, remember from Pushkin:

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.

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.

I don’t know what clinic Anatoly goes to, but to say that in modern geopolitical realities investing in the country’s nuclear security is more than stupid. And we are not just talking about a possible nuclear conflict. I am sure, I hope, that this will never happen in history. We are also talking about lower-intensity conflicts with conventional weapons.

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, first of all, 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 large cities of Russia. All this was stopped there in Syria
V) Russia has tested many modern types of weapons.
- for the Americans, the power of Russian electronic warfare, “Caliber”, turned out to be a complete revelation;
- the Su-35 underwent its first combat use, strategic aviation underwent its first combat use, Russian aviation held American F-22s in its sights, almost the entire Aerospace Forces personnel underwent “break-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;
- the Russian armed forces have worked out 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 has gained a foothold in this most important region of the world - the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean are nearby. They are firmly attached and can no longer be knocked out. And this will force the enemy to take the Russian state seriously 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.

So, does Tolya think that everything can be done with a snap of a finger or maybe it requires hard work?

And this is the first case of mass murder in a Russian school in 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 the 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

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”.

Well, what can I say? Well done!

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”:

After getting acquainted with all these materials, Murid’s hidden support for Islamist militants in Syria is no longer surprising.

Anatoly, remember from Pushkin:

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.

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 an officer of the Ukrainian army 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.

El Murid, Anatoly Nesmiyan, has been in LiveJournal for many years. He calls himself a military expert, but does not say in which regiment he served. By diploma he is an engineer. Doesn't work in his specialty. Once upon a time he had his own small business. In general, he is a blogger.
When he began his career, he was an extraordinary patriot of Russia. But for some reason, his patriotism demanded that Russia save Libya from Western countries and from collapse. He expected that any minute there would be a statement about the deployment of our troops there or something else.

Then Nesmiyan really wanted a full-fledged Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine.
But I didn’t wait for either one.

For some reason this made him very angry, and he went into opposition to the authorities, to Putin, to the Russian Federation and to everything Russian at the same time (it’s a pity, they don’t know). Perhaps he believed that Putin should have listened to his wise posts.
Nesmiyan was not happy with the annexation of Crimea, and the war in Syria does not suit him either. Such a capricious guy.

Since then, this man has been catching the slightest breath of wind to shout that everything is lost, that Russia is the end, and all because few listened to him.
Here's from his post today.

« The States are clearly escalating things and intend to lead things to a social explosion following the example of Iran. Apparently, they no longer intend to wait for some mythical-spherical opposition to Putin to mature in the depths of Putin’s lads. It is possible (and this cannot be ruled out) that the United States will eventually, after the collapse of the vertical control following a popular cry, rely on regional elites, but this means that in this case the Americans are betting on the controlled collapse of Russia and the transfer of its fragments to the management of large regional players - the In particular, Turkey will probably be asked to take Islamic regions under its wing, the Poles will be given control over a number of central and a number of northwestern regions, the Europeans will take part in projects in the Urals and Western Siberia, and the Far East will be offered to be transferred under the control of Japan. Ukraine, by the way, may lose Kuban and a number of central regions of Russia (and, of course, Crimea) in such a scenario. Naturally, all this is under the patronage and arbitration of the United States itself. This is an incredibly difficult scenario, but frankly speaking, some others could be completely catastrophic. At the same time, the stability of the Putin regime itself is quickly exhausted even without sanctions; it has already gobbled up and squandered the entire development resource, and is now eating up and stealing the sustainability resource. With or without sanctions, its end is inevitable.

One way or another, the fact that the Americans clearly escalated matters should lead us to understand the meaning of their decisions. The only limiting factor so far is uncertainty, which the United States, of course, wants to avoid. Therefore, pressure will increase, sanctions will become tougher, the situation of the population will worsen, but all this will happen in doses, making it possible to assess the consequences and prospects.

Putin certainly has no chance. Strategically, he has already lost. This is predetermined by the criminal nature of the Mafia State he created - a bandit can never defeat a policeman, although he may try to buy or deceive him. But in a systemic struggle for results, the bandit always ends up where he belongs. The only problem is that by giving Putin’s gang a mandate to rule the country, the Russian people doomed themselves to a scenario that was catastrophic in every sense.

».

How lovely! And he sincerely believes that everything will be so. He is somewhat horrified, but at the same time rejoices: of course, he warned!

The alpha and omega of Nesmiyan’s reasoning is that Putin and his entourage are real bandits, mafiosi: “ in the Russian case, initially criminal individuals and groups came to power, having committed every conceivable criminal offense even before coming to power" Nesmiyan writes this as if the fact that Putin, even before coming to power, committed every conceivable criminal crime is an irrefutable fact. Sorry, who has proven this?

Of all the evidence, a certain report by the late Marina Salye is constantly mentioned, in which she allegedly proved that Putin cheated something with oil products during his work with Sobchak. Sorry, but even Salye’s comrades admit that this report is muddy, and all conclusions are based on incorrect calculations associated with mathematical errors.

That's all. But this does not stop the same Nesmiyan from constantly saying that the President of the Russian Federation is a bandit, and the United States, naturally, wants to remove him even at the cost of destroying Russia. And what is characteristic is that Nesmiyan agrees with them in principle. Yes, it’s a pity for this Russia, but since Putin is a mafioso, there is no other way.
It's amazing where true patriotism can lead.