September 04, 2004

• Unlike you, I can fathom what it takes for one human to become capable of such complete disregard for another. It's simply a matter of ceasing to view the other has a human being. Sophistry aside, it's not that hard to do. I do it every day. What separates me from these "rebels" is the good sense not to relish this power over my judgement; like with any good sense, I am sure I can be cured of it with the right circumstances and modest training. Now I have to ask you what you were expecting in response to this post. Condemnations of the attacks? There are plenty of those to be found anywhere, though there can not of course be too many of them. Sober examinations of grief? Grief is fine, sobriety is good, but don't let them paralyze you. There isn't much else to say, is there? (Having spent all of my karma with this comment, I am going to head outside for my morning jog expecting to be run over by a truck. What a beautiful sunrise!)
• has → as
• There are atrocities on both sides, unfortunately. :( These parents have also lost children who have "disappeared" under the Russian occupation of Chechnya.
• Well, I think it's a good post. I'm surprised it didn't show up here sooner, in fact. It bears posting, IMO. This is truly horrific. we owe it to those who suffer through such atrocities to at least talk about and recognize this unimaginable crime Better than I could have put it. Thank you, Darshon.
• em tags on that middle line
• Update from the International Red Cross.
• Camilla Carr and her boyfriend, Jon James, were kidnapped by Chechen rebels in 1997, and held hostage for over a year. Their story, brief but immensely powerful. She was interviewed yesterday on the radio, and she made an interesting, but chilling, point. The Chechens who kidnapped and repeatedly raped her had a life before the conflict. They'd had jobs, had been part of a community, and over the time of her imprisonment by them she came to know them as humans. But for the young Chechens involved in this act - assuming, of course, there was Chechen involvement, which seems likely at this stage even if some Arabs were also involved - they would have been 10, 11 when the conflict began. They know nothing other than war. Her point was that, for some people, dehumanising others in the name of a cause or ideology is easy. They're sociopaths, lacking the mental barrier tensor talked about that prevents us all from acting in horrfic ways. But for many others, that state of mind can be created by a prolonged time in a situation without any of the norms of human life, without perspective, without hope. War does that - it cannot help but do that. It's horrifying. That people can move so far from normal human behaviour that a crying child no longer moves them - and that already, the announced reaction to it is one guaranteed only to push even more people beyond the boundaries. There's a reason why the phrase "cycle of violence" is a cliché. It's because it's what always bloody happens.
• That's a great link, flashboy. It's now in my favorites. I realize that Chechnya has been dealing with very similiar atrocities and they have been virtually ignored. I suppose I would have felt better if they had reacted IRA style. I can better handle the unexpected, instant death types of attacks versus a prolonged seige where the bulk of the hostages are children. Plus, they do themselves a great disservice if their trying to promote their 'cause' by attacking children. That's a universal no-no. Now I have to ask you what you were expecting in response to this post. Condemnations of the attacks? There are plenty of those to be found anywhere, though there can not of course be too many of them. Sober examinations of grief? Grief is fine, sobriety is good, but don't let them paralyze you. There isn't much else to say, is there Good question. I'd have to say examinations of grief. However, beyond that would be examinations of terror. As a parent, I have found that I am far and away more susceptible to stories like this. It is an instant association to the possibilities. As an American, I can no longer look at my own little world thru rose-colored glasses. That bubble has been effectively burst. I am much closer to realizing that 'but for the grace of God, go I'. I also chose to post this because of the international aspect of this community. It is nice to get beyond my own country's borders and talk with the rest of the world and feel some sense of solidarity. It gives me comfort and I will always take that where I can get it. BTW, Tensor, just what do you do? /not snarky- sincerely curious
• I find it interesting that Robert Young Pelton once characterized the Chechens as gangsters but seems to have softened his view
• The death toll from the Russian school atrocity has risen to 322.
• Good link, waraw. Thanks. Also, a little background on the crisis that is Chechnya. The slaughter of those children, women and men in that school was a horrible way for the West to finally begin to take notice of the war but maybe now we can do something to stop the insanity on both sides.
• "...maybe now we can do something to stop the insanity on both sides." Don't hold your breath.
• "Don't hold your breath." Eh, I think I will anyway. Even after this tragedy I still believe in humans.
• Once a society becomes sociopathic - meaning that for whatever reason your ideology is more important to you than the lives of the defenceless; naked screaming children shot in the back; people trapped on a bus blown to shit; Red Cross workers shot - I think the individuals directly responsible should be taken out and shot, and the societal figures responsible - teachers, mothers of suicide bombers, 'religious leaders' shot right alongside them. Let me tell you, there is such a thing as evil, and no amount of understanding why they do it will ever change that, or the future conduct of these people if left alive.
• Unfortunately, Robert Young Pelton "forgot" one important thing: Second Chechen War has began after Chechen bandits tried to invade Dagestan. What weights more: Lebed's words about three years timeout, or 300 chechen "guerrillamans", trying to bring holy words of Allah to its nearest neigbors? After signing Hasav-Yurt ceasefire, chechen chiefs had 3 years-long possibility to enjoy complete freedom to build any state they wanted to build. Chechnya has its own oil stockpiles, but instead rasing economy for their motherland, they preferred to establish Shari'ah rules (BTW, where was Human Rights Watсh, when they stoned people to death for such "crimes" as adultery, or not going to masjid?), kidnap people from Russia and turn them into slaves, and at the end - they tried to invade another part of Russia. May be, after years of such bright governance they just lacked followership of their policy*? Only after their attempt to invade Dagestan, Russian "bear", in romantic Pelton's rhetoric, woked and again "ivaded" Chechnya. And BTW, that was not "occupation" - Chechnya was part of Russia during 300 years, approximately from times of signing Declaration of Independence in US. After all, I don't want to be involved in long flamewars concerning political and war situation in my homeland, as i am neither fluent enough in English, nor instinct with inspiration to throw "high words" in my "opponents". I just wanted give local community some additional facts from incide. -------- *Now, when people of Checnya voted for being together with Russia on nation-wide referendum, that sounds pretty much more likely.
• Choosing to complacently accept the miraculous good in this world as your due, while refusing to accept the reality of its equivalent evil and deal decisively with it is intellectual cowardice, and deserves no more respect than any other self-serving bullshit.
• An interesting opinion piece in today's New York Times *free registration required.* Like many Westerners, I'm only now learning how far back this conflict goes and how bloody it has been on both sides. They need to resolve this situation as soon as is humanly possible because there really is no other way. What many people are saying now, however, is that they want revenge. I understand that sentiment but if this madness is to stop, revenge isn't the way. It certainly hasn't been so far.
• Hallelujiah, moneyjane. The great fallacy of the 20th century is that all conflict flows from misunderstanding, that if we just sat down over some nice camomille tea we could surely talk things out. There is such a thing as evil, and without the courage to face and defeat it any society is doomed.
• Hikikomori, there was many casualities, but not on both sides, but on whole 3 sides: chechen bandits, federal forces, and civillians from Chechnya, Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan - even from Moscow. And of this 3 sides only casualities from 2 sides i am disappointed with: federal forces and civillians. Those, who killed childrens in Ossetia are not chechens. Not to say, that therrorists have no nationality at all, approximately half of combatants in Ossetia was from arabian countries; moreover, one of them was black. So, this conflict is not a conflict between rebellious Chechnya and imperial Russia - this is conflict between legal and illegal; and of all sides civillians are suffering most in this conflict. All heads of chechen teips condemned this conflict. Do you really think, that if chechens want freedom for its country, they would be involved in actions like those in Ossetia? Today they are feared most of all in Russia - because they think revenge will be directed on their's side. How do you think: will chechens attack its nearest neighbor to bring freedom to its country? Well, all right: Nord-Ost act could be interpreted as revenge from chechen "rebels" to Russian imperial citizens. But small farmland town in Ossetia? Ossetins are caucasians also, much more vulnerable to violence, than more "civilised" russians, due to its national character and existence of vendetta as one of social norm, latent hitherto. Best way to destabilise situation in North Caucasus is start a conflict between local nations. Chechen civillians want peace most of all - they are tired from war. But there are forces interested in locus of tension in North Caucasus. And there are forces, interested in place without any rules and any governance near borders of Russia. It's their business: kidnapping, drugdealing, bootlegging, and so on. Civillians could get only more casualities from such a business. But they need such a place, where no legar governance take place. For 3 years they had such a marvellous place - Chechnya. Now they don't. And they want to take it back. Again: there is NO conflict between population of Chechnya and Russia government. There is conflict between local gangsters and federal forces; but scale of this conflict is pretty large, and this is very sad.
• I appreciate your perspective, CocaineTeddyBear. Thank you. I've been researching quite a bit about the conflict in Chechnya since the news broke about the hostage crisis and I'm learning a lot. Again, it sucks that it took this bloody event for me to begin to be interested in the situation in that part of the world and the suffering on all sides. The Western media hasn't been as forceful as they needed to be to get the news out to us but in their defence it seems Russia has not made media access very easy in the recent past either. *sigh* All of this crazyness makes my head spin. But I still believe all parties involved need to find some way to bring a peaceful end to this. And the West needs to help in that endeavor.
• Western help never comes free of charge, hikikomori.
• "Even after this tragedy I still believe in humans." I'll believe in them when I see one.
• Western help never comes free of charge, hikikomori. Russia is a very proud nation so realistically I don't see them asking for help, especially from us anyway so I suppose they're free of our "charges." Let's hope they'll accept help or advice from someone regarding a resolution to this conflict.
• "Even after this tragedy I still believe in humans." I'll believe in them when I see one. Here's One And another And another still They're everywhere but unfortunately the bad ones get more attention.
• Choosing to complacently accept the miraculous good in this world as your due, while refusing to accept the reality of its equivalent evil and deal decisively with it is intellectual cowardice, and deserves no more respect than any other self-serving bullshit. All the same, when you start calling for the eradication of all people in the general vicinity of such murderers, you won't blame the rest of us for looking for real evil in your direction, too, now will you? Not that there aren't times I'd like to see mullahs catching bullets, but one genocide-advocating motherfucker is exactly the same as another to me, you understand. Clear?
• To sum it all up so far. You do not worship my invisible man. I will not worship your invisible man. Someone must die. (sorry, Dear God by XTC is playing on the radio)
• "The experience of Srebrenica may be a footnote in understanding what unfolded in the former Yugoslavia this decade, but proponents of a strong and ethical interventionism based on multilateral institutions must learn from the experiences of those international actors at Srebrenica who seemed the least political, the most principled, and the most tragic." I was the only non-Balkan present at a Vancouver protest a few days before this massacre. Somebody asked if I could translate into English a diary smuggled out of a concentration camp in the warzone. There I was, a punk rock dumbass with blue hair, carrying a sign saying "Whatever Happened to 'Never Again'?", while the rest of my usually fashionably protest-happy city walked by with its head up its ass. They were desperate enough to ask somebody like me to please, please see what was really happening. I will never forget that.
• You do not worship my invisible man. I will not worship your invisible man. Dunno if that's so much at the bottom of it. Chechen insurrection against Russia has a bit of a history. To hear the Chechens tell it, they've been trying to be independant since before the Koran was a glimmer in Gabriel's eye.
• Furiousdork; "eradication of all people in the general vicinity of such murderers" is not the same as "the individuals directly responsible should be taken out and shot, and the societal figures responsible - teachers, mothers of suicide bombers, 'religious leaders'..." I find it difficult to differentiate between self-serving armchair fusspots and those who post before they read thoroughly, but I make the effort. Clear?
• Thanks for the link about Srebrenica mj. and the ground-based opinions CocaineTeddyBear. International intervention can be the solution. But misapplied can be more damaging. More if the help comes from people ignorant of what they are getting into. Wishful thinking will only generate frustration for those who want to help and hate from those who don't think they need any help. Sometimes the best we can do is swallow or indignation, seat back, watch and listen for what the bullets and blood have to tell us about reality. Then, we may really can do something about it.
• I like to think of myself as someone who has faith in the humanity of humanity, despite having seen a hell of a lot of crap. Why do I feel this way? Because of two facts about human nature, that I will phrase in the form of arguments: moneyjane: I can understand how angry you are. This kind of thing is always upsetting and it never gets easier to handle. But it's at times like this when the true measure of our goodness is our ability to step beyond our rage and see the purpetrators of evil as the human beings that they are. If only it were possible to rid ourselves of evil by cutting out the rot. But it isn't, and it never will be because of fact one: 1: Almost all people are capable of committing atrocities of this nature. Not everybody, there are a few who seem to be able to resist this kind of thing, but the vast, overwhelming majority. I agree that we live in a world that contains evil. But that evil is not a contagen; it lies inside us all, and speaks through our anger, hatred, playful malice... but most especially through our ability to stop seeing others as humans. It makes me very sad to say this, because I have felt your same anger many times, but when you seek the death of an evil-doer, you are activating the same mechanisms in yourself that allowed those evil acts to be performed. You become your enemy. You create more evil. So that's not a very nice picture, is it folks? Where's the redemption in that? Fact two: while almost everybody can be put in a possition where they will commit atrocities, almost none of those people can live with themselves afterward. People who commit evil acts get messed up by it, seriously traumatised. We can be evil, but in the long run the truely beautiful human qualities of compassion, reflection, concience and sorrow almost always win out. This is, incidentally, why the largest-scale periods of killing are always organised by people who don't actually witness it themselves. That way they can keep the ball rolling without simply ceasing up inside. Like I say, I have faith in the humanity of humanity. Humanity is complex, often dangerous but, ultimately, we are all beautiful. If we weren't, it wouldn't hurt so much.
• I met the Dalai Lama. We discussed things, briefly. I spoke to him of human violence, the 'ingrained aggression of the human species' - he replied "I don't know any murderers.. do you?" It took me aback. So certain, I was, that humans were fighting against their own inner nature - that violence and horror were part of what we are that I forgot the basic logic of seeing things as they really are (which is what Buddhism is really all about). Truly, the majority of people in this world are *not* violent, and wish not violence upon others. I had missed the fundamental reality - most of us are *not* violent. Most of us are *not* aggressive. Most of us are kindly, caring, loving. In primatology, we learn that 80% of monkey behaviour is play. 80%. The agression & loud screeching is just what makes for a more entertaining wildlife documentary. We talked some more. But at the end, I agreed. We do not face an uphill struggle, as humanity, against a dominant majority of violent, twisted monsters within our midst. We face a struggle of recognition of a dominant minority of violent, screeching creatures who really do not represent us at all, as a race, but who have enslaved us for thousands of years. I wish you peace.
• Yes, the majority wants peace, wants to be left alone to work, to play, to pray, to love; but the few with weapons or power have other plans. And mobs make great cannon fodder, make great instant soldiers, after the 'enemy' exerts some horror on their own people. Who wouldn't go and blow some bus after an army burned your town, chewed on and tore apart your loved ones and peed on you? Can we expect judgement on peope that has never known any other life than that based on guns, the army, violence and squalor? This has troubled me since always: it's easy to do evil. It's simple to do some horrible, scarring thing to someone. It can be fast. But try to do something that will change their lives for the best, that they will cherish, that will be a happy memory forever; that's not easy.
• "It makes me very sad to say this, because I have felt your same anger many times, but when you seek the death of an evil-doer, you are activating the same mechanisms in yourself that allowed those evil acts to be performed. You become your enemy. You create more evil." I respect what you are saying, and how you've said it; however, I disagree. I don't become my enemy - my enemy is self-created by the choices he or she made. I may become something you don't like, but these two things are not the same. And evil, like matter, is neither created or destroyed. It is measurable, in my opinion, only in how much we as individuals choose to ignore it. You always have a choice as to if you will or will not commit an atrocity. If there is a gun to your head, you shut your eyes, and tell them to shoot you. When I die, I want to be able to say "I did the right thing" not "It wasn't my fault". And if my doing the right thing includes taking out someone who's right thing includes shooting children in the back; so be it.
• moneyjane, I hear you. Trouble is, the very shootings you advocated above would result in you yourself being shot, should you have the misfortune to be on the weaker side in a conflict. It's the key question: who decides what is evil? To be sure, we can all be comfortable in ourselves - we're all sure we aren't evil - but what if it's not us with the gun in hand? What if it's the other son of the mother who was shot because one of her kids commited murder? The wife of the teacher who couldn't quite make his students see the innate goodness in humanity? The son of the killer, who only knew the generous, loving parent? To them, would we not be an evil, sociopathic society? This isn't some moral relativism bullshit - there are good acts and bad acts, and worse acts, and acts so terrible as to be almost unimaginable. It's a bluntly practical issue - act in that manner, and all of a sudden it's not your conscience that you have to justify your actions to. It's the next person with the gun. You're right in saying that simply understanding how people can possibly become so shorn of human feeling will not make it go away. But perhaps it can stop us making things worse, if we act in accordance with what we learn. The Chechen conflict, surely, is evidence that the attempt to 'destroy' evil - as though it were some easily identifiable, cauterizable part of humanity - is futile. On one side, a group of thuggish, brutal ideologues; on the other, a destructive and indiscriminate state machine; both trying to destroy the evil that they honestly see on the other side. Ten years later, all we have is a society so immersed in conflict that many can no longer tell the difference between what is evil and what is mundane. Nostil's right. It's not actually hard to stop most humans from being 'evil'; people have lives to lead, families and friends to love, and that which we could all agree on as 'evil' would never cross their minds. But flood a society in retribution, violence and pain, and evil will spread - simply because nobody will be able to see it for what it is.
• Darshon: BTW, Tensor, just what do you do? /not snarky- sincerely curious Just your run of the mill grad student staying up all night for a conference submission deadline. And procrastinating like there's no tomorrow. And crashing for eight hours in the middle of the day from sleep deprivation. The usual story.
• There are lines that should never be crossed. Killing people unable to defend themselves is one of them. If you knew your father had been up on that roof, shooting those running children in the back, and you still saw him as a generous loving parent, then you have a serious problem I cannot begin to address. Blood ties do not absolve anyone of anything.
• On days like this it is easy to think that the world might be a better place if the human race finally manages to exterminate itself. Leave the earth to the less sentient beings and see what happens in another billion years or so. BTW, Moneyjane, I agree with you wholeheartedly but that's probably part of the problem.
• If you knew your father had been up on that roof, shooting those running children in the back, and you still saw him as a generous loving parent, then you have a serious problem I cannot begin to address. Quite possibly that's true. However, to pretend that people don't act in that way, don't still feel love for even the worst transgressors of societal norms, is to ignore the evidence of the world around you. To have the aim of leaving this world being able to say "I did the right thing" is a noble one. I would simply say that it's essential for anybody who has that aim to also ask themselves - all the more strongly the more fervent their belief in their rightness - the simple question: "But what if I'm wrong?"
• There is no right or wrong about it. The universe doesn't give a damn what a bunch of well-dressed chimpanzees do to each other, except perhaps in making sure that their precious bodily fluids can be recycled for yet another cycle.

• I had missed the fundamental reality - most of us are *not* violent. Most of us are *not* aggressive.

  That explains the enthusiasm with which people volunteered for WW I & II, then. Or the mess of Yugoslavia.

  Leave the earth to the less sentient beings and see what happens in another billion years or so.

  Humans are hardly uniquely awful. Ever seen lionesses desperately trying to save their cubs from a lion? Only to mate with him once he's killed them?
• There are lines that should never be crossed. Killing people unable to defend themselves is one of them. Oh yeah. I hereby declare thousands and thousands of "war heroes" around the world to be line-crossing evil-doers. You know, the cowards who drop bombs on civilians from the sky. The human condition is *so* simple. Why don't people just get it already? American soldiers deliberately used incendiary bombs on Japanese civilians near the end of WW2, eventually dropping two atomic bombs that wiped out two cities. Children and adults... quick burning by fire or slow cooking by radiation. The lucky ones got blasted to bits. Growing up Chinese, I was taught that the American bombs were Good Things because they stopped the Japanese from raping "us" further. That the American soldiers were our friends, heroes who saved us. Moral clarity was a given. Then I grew up, studied history beyond the textbooks, and realized that the A-bombs weren't necessary. That the incendiary bombs killed mostly the defenseless who couldn't save their own lives, much less massacre my ancestors. But I hesitated to call those American soldiers evil, because I thought the situation was far more complicated than that. Not anymore! Thanks to the concise, no-nonsense edict I just read on Internet tonight, I can now rest assured that those Americans in WW2 were indeed monsters. Because, you know, they deliberately killed defenseless people, and refusing to acknowledge the evil therein just because they probably saved my grandparents' lives is self-serving intellectual cowardice. Or so I just learned. Isn't it wonderful when we define a moral boundary in two sentences? With a little editing we could do it in one!
• Whom are you deriding? Those who are against killing defenseless people, or those who hold a double standard regarding "war heroes"? There is some overlap, but the two sets are hardly identical.
• "Children and adults... quick burning by fire or slow cooking by radiation. The lucky ones got blasted to bits." Those actions were war crimes. So was the fire-bombing of Dresden. Those who planned and perpetrated those actions should have had their asses treated the same way the Germans were treated at Nuremberg. "Because, you know, they deliberately killed defenseless people, and refusing to acknowledge the evil therein just because they probably saved my grandparents' lives is self-serving intellectual cowardice." Yeah. It is. Oddly enough, benefiting from the deaths of defenseless people does not in fact make those deaths acceptable. I'm signing off here - my point of view on this subject does not need further repetition.
• "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn I have little other of significance to add. I think the question of apportioning moral culpability from acts in war is not and cannot be as simple as identifying the perpetrators and punishing them, as there is a culture that allowed for and supported those acts. That it is a first and necessary step seems clear to me however.
• "eradication of all people in the general vicinity of such murderers" is not the same as "the individuals directly responsible should be taken out and shot, and the societal figures responsible - teachers, mothers of suicide bombers, 'religious leaders'..." I find it difficult to differentiate between self-serving armchair fusspots and those who post before they read thoroughly, but I make the effort. Clear? "Societal figures responsible" works out to "all people in the general vicinity" in practice, especially since you threw in teachers and mothers in the mix, so I'm not much impressed with your resolve to figure out who is responsible for what. Suppose they caught and executed Dylan and Kleibold, who after all intended the kind of horror that's happened in Russia - would you then go out and shoot their parents and their fourth grade math teachers? But then you're on about "benefiting from the deaths of defenseless people does not in fact make those deaths acceptable" re Dresden and I'm not sure what your point of view is, because if Dresden wasn't a retaliatory act of indiscriminate violence I don't know what is. Killing the terrorist is not crossing the line. Killing the one who inspires the terrorist to kill is not crossing the line as long as that relationship is direct. Killing family and friends and teachers and anyone who could be construed as an influence crosses the line. That is my point of view.
• Repetition, no, training-wheel levels of clarification, apparently yes. Last time, I promise. "Killing the one who inspires the terrorist to kill is not crossing the line as long as that relationship is direct." I'll try again. I am talking about those teachers, and those mothers, and those religious leaders shown to have a direct relationship with, and a direct and powerful influence on those who slaughter defenseless people. Teachers who feverently believe it appropriate first graders in Palestinian grade schools don miniature mock suicide bombs and re-enact killing Jews as part of a school pageant. Not the same as teaching Dylan and Kleibold long division. Mothers of 15 year-old suicide bombers who tell their child that by blowing up other children at a bus stop, he will attain martyrdom, and bring honour to his family. Not the same as the mothers of Dylan and Kleibold driving the kids to soccer practice. Similar, however to John Muhammad's role in the life of Lee Boyd Malvo. Religious leaders who tell the flock that by killing defenseless civilians they will attain salvation...change that to cult leader, throw in Sharon Tate and Helter Skelter...why, exactly, is Charles Manson in jail, even though he was never shown to have personally stabbed anyone in either the Tate or LaBianca killings? Perhaps because through his influence he was, essentially a killer by proxy? "I'm not sure what your point of view is, because if Dresden wasn't a retaliatory act of indiscriminate violence I don't know what is." Did you not read and/or understand this? "Those actions were war crimes. So was the fire-bombing of Dresden. Those who planned and perpetrated those actions should have had their asses treated the same way the Germans were treated at Nuremberg." Meaning the firebombing of Dresden was a vicious assault on a civilian population that should have been viewed as a war crime by the same powers that ordered the trials of Nazis for war crimes at Nuremberg. I have an opinion. I've clarified the basis of my reasoning as much as I can. If you are choosing to 'misunderstand' what I'm expressing in order to strengthen the basis of your opinion (which is what? That all actions are strictly the work of individuals, and that people in positions of power who create and nurture the destructive mindsets of those individuals get a walk?) well, there's not much I can add, is there?
• Superb thread, eloquent posts from all. Imagine what this thread would be like on Fark, or Metafilter. Long may Monkeyfilter rule.
• ilyadeux, thanks for the Solzhenitsyn quote. Great stuff - exactly what I was trying to say, ony a tad more eloquent. I guess that's why he got a Nobel prize in literature, whereas the committee seem to be stalling on confirming my award (damn them). Perhaps it's a trite sign-off to an excellent, provocative thread - and I'm not normally the sort to go quotin' scripture - but it always seemed to be that "Thou shalt not kill" was a pretty good place to start. And stop, too. They kinda b0rked it by putting in tons of righteous killing into the book too, but in that one bit, I'd say they pretty much nailed it. So to speak.
• Funny thing, Chrid...I was thinking the exact opposite. I was dismayed that moneyjane's comments, which I largely agree with, represent the minority view here. The idealism behind views like "no violence is justified" and "retribution would just as bad as the original atrocity" is understandable and even laudable, but it doesn't help. This evil thing happened, and must be prevented from happening again. Loving your enemy will not prevent it from happening again. Being sympathetic and seeing the perpetrators' point of view will not prevent it from happening again. These monsters are the product of a flawed, evil system. A system that raised playful, loving children and turned them into amoral killing machines. That system must be dismantled, through more violence if necessary, and everyone involved in its design and operation brought to task. Yes, evil begets evil...but pacifism can allow evil to flourish, too.
• That system must be dismantled, through more violence if necessary, and everyone involved in its design and operation brought to task. Not wishing to do some sort of rapid-response snarkback, but isn't that exactly what they've been trying to do in Chechnya for ten long, bloody years now? I always think back to the country my parents are from, N. Ireland (they left sharpish in the early seventies, when everything kicked off). One day of stupid, wanton violence by the state - January 30th 1972 - left 13 people dead (eventually 14), and became the prime recruiting factor for the bastard IRA for decades. It doesn't matter if it was good, bad, understandable, or incomprehensible, justifiable, or whatever: what it did was guarantee nothing but a horrific surge in the levels of violence and killing. And that's just one event, 'only' 13 people dead. It didn't help; internment didn't help; police violence didn't help. Talking did, even if only a bit. Those little bits can be damn precious.
• moneyjane, thanks for responding. I admit my first comment wasn't intended to discuss anything with you so much as paint a big swastika on you after a bit of tar and feathering. I'd been sickening myself elsewhere on stuff of the kill-all-the-Arabs-and-let-God-sort-them-out variety. What set me off - "the societal figures responsible - teachers, mothers of suicide bombers, 'religious leaders'" - comes off strongly as the kind of collective punishment action that's been practiced by brutal tyrannies for thousands of years. But, you mean dealing specifically with instigators. Fine, I agree. For example I think the radio broadcasters in Rwanda who instigated the genocide there deserved to die. But I would be careful about who I defined as an instigator and decided to kill. It's not a clear line. You have the terrorist leader, the jihad-spouting mullah, the teacher who is unhappy about Western politics, the doof on the corner wearing the Osama t-shirt, and the bereaved mother who can't stop talking about her sons who died to an American bomb. They're all instigators, but you don't kill all of them, do you? And then there's the question of whether killing the instigators works. Not sure that it's doing Israel a whole lot of good, for example. And then, finally, if there's anything that kills the human ability to make such distinctions, it's wartime. So I'm loath to quickly say, you deserve to die, oh yeah, and you and you and you. But I am not a pacifist. (Re Dresden: the horrible thing about total war is that civilians lose some of their innocence in helping the war effort; I would, without diminishing the awfulness of Dresden, argue that many of the German civilians there were more culpable than you average Palestinian bystander, or mothers of suicide bombers or the like. I'm personally unsure of whether Dresden was a war crime or war as hell. Germany wasn't broken yet. Nagasaki I'm not as conflicted about.)
• I spent a few hours watching CBC Newsworld's reporting on this, and one thing stood out: the Russian mother who said (I'll paraphrase) "I hate all Chechnyans, even their children now. Still, I understand that these people who killed my child lost their own children to Russian murderers. Where does this end?" The broadcast also made me laugh out loud in a moment of inadvertent black humour. A young girl who'd survived the ordeal was being interviewed, and the translator, while talented, misspoke a few times. The girl was describing conditions in the gymnasium in which they were held, that they'd not been allowed to visit the bathroom or have any water. Then she said "We had nothing to eat for three days, except for small children." and I burst into laughter. Yes, I know what was meant, but the translator's words did make me laugh.
• What moneyjane said. All of it. She's absolutely, 100% right. I can't say anything else about this. I am a father. My sons are the most precious things in my life. And today, I cannot imagine that there is something that Putin could do in Chechnya that I would disapprove of.
• I spent a few hours watching CBC Newsworld's reporting on this, and one thing stood out: the Russian mother who said (I'll paraphrase) "I hate all Chechnyans, even their children now. Still, I understand that these people who killed my child lost their own children to Russian murderers. Where does this end?" I'll bet that this Russian mother is not going to go out and kill because of this. I believe there are levels of evil. On a small scale, you have a murderer. This person kills someone because they caught him robbing their home. On the other hand, you have a serial killer whose sole purpose is to satisfy their needs by killing. If I was the judge, that second would be excecuted, no questions asked. Our world cannot afford to maintain the lives of people who can only be happy if they are taking lives. We can't afford to let those living well outside the fray to do whatever they want in the face of general guidelines we, as humans, have set up for ourselves. For 99% of us, we really don't need those guidelines, being decent is our basic nature. It is that one percent (those accidents of nature, if you will) that cannot be allowed to put their roots down and spread their own personal madness. People who are capable of looking a child in the eye and purposely hurting them for a 'cause' have gone so far beyond understanding that eradication is all that is left for them. I know that 'eradication' is a horrible word, but it fits the crime. It's like being a drug addict. As you reach lower and lower levels with your drug of choice without doing irreparable damage to yourself, you figure you can go the next step, so you do. Over and over and over. Until, one day, there is no other place to go except death. If someone has the capability to kill another person while looking them in the face, let alone a defenseless child, think of how much easier it becomes for them to solve their problems with murder. The human race needs to have some defence against this type of insanity. As far as I am concerned that means they have to be subtracted from our population. I realize that there are gray areas, I'm not sure what they might be, but I recognize the possibility. I would like to be able to say I'm a Buddhist, or at least practice it in thought, but I really think that we need to protect ourselves in the face of such depravity. As a mother, had I been in Russia, in that building with my children and they were hurt (killed), I would have lost my mind and attacked to the very bitter end. In no way, shape or form could I have not lashed out at those bastards. Ultimately, I don't care what your cause is, there is nothing on this earth that justifies something like this.
• rodgerd made the more knowledgeable comment of all. We are not perfect creatures. We weren't made to love thy neighborg or hate him, to speak to others or fight with them, to form big societies with big rules or big armies. We weren't made to be rational all the time. Those things must be learn, and even if well learned we are bound to make terrible mistakes, like sometimes hurting innocent people, just because we can't be perfect. We didn't even came to this world to accomplish anything good or bad (religious and humanistic people are welcome to disagree). I we want to do "good or evil" is because we learned from our society to do so because that's the only way we can reach happiness, awareness, gracefulness, forgiveness, nirvana or whatever. I really have no point in saying this. Just wanted to remark my personal view on human nature. And I don't know why but I always feel I come with the most wtf-is-he-talking-about comment of all. But, never mind, I'm just spilling my brain on the keyboard.
• Hey FD...it's hard to talk about shit that doesn't make sense in a way that does make sense - but I'd have to say that all of us here have tried our best. And that's something. We're all going to need it in the years to come.
• As a mother, had I been in Russia, in that building with my children and they were hurt (killed), I would have lost my mind and attacked to the very bitter end. [...] Ultimately, I don't care what your cause is, there is nothing on this earth that justifies something like this. What if your cause is "The Russians killed my family"?
• But those Russians in that building didn't kill their families. At the very least those children didn't. As I think about it, if a child pointed a gun at my child and shot, I don't believe that I would in turn do the same to that child. I cannot fathom it. In the worst moment I can imagine ever having to go through, I just don't think I would have the capability to do that.
• Look, I agree that it's completely sick. But let's not imagine that people haven't lost children in this conflict already. Tit for tat ratchets up pretty quickly. And it's been a filthy little war on both sides.
• In a tit for tat war, there is no good and bad side. Both sides just keep at it, killing innocents, and thinking they are justified because their own innocents were killed. One person's vigilante is another's terrorist, and vice versa. About the evil question - yes, we are all (with a few saintly exceptions) capable of it, given the right circumstances. We like to think that we aren't, that we might be one of the brave few, but we'll never know until we're in that situation.
• Accurate scholarship can Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago made A psychopathic god .. I believe in 'accurate scholarship', and I do have faith that even the worst crimes against humanity are ultimately susceptible of historical explanation; that if you let the historians into Auschwitz or Tuol Sleng, to interview the survivors and sift through the evidence, they will be able to make some sort of sense of what happened, and help the rest of us to understand it. I am disturbed by some of the comments in this thread, because they don't seem to me to bear much resemblance to what I think of as historical explanation. Several people here seem to think that what we are dealing with is a rogue 'ideology', a sort of virus, which can be eradicated by killing all the people who carry or transmit it. (Dawkins's great mistake, btw.) Ideology can't be separated from the culture of which it forms a part -- and how are you going to eradicate a culture? Fire-bomb it? Meanwhile, moneyjane, rocket88, et al., remember how the poem goes on. 'I and the public know ..' No, I won't quote it. You probably know it already. If not, look it up.
• Here's something that never really seems to come up in arguments about what to do about terrorism, and it has to do with how we're not perfect creatures. If you think my emotional responses to terrible things like this are all along the lines of "give peace a chance" then you are very mistaken. I understand exactly where Fes is coming from every time I look at those pictures. As a matter of fact when I read peoples' wishes for total revenge I am usually surprised by their lack of imagination. So the fury with which I respond to "kill 'em all" or anything that looks like it isn't just directed at a nebulous "us", it's directed at me. Because it won't end if we just kill scads of people and scatter the rest to the winds. Slaughter on that scale will follow us and if things are peaceful afterwards they won't be peaceful for long. It's basically variations of this: A country fires a missile, nukes a U.S. city. The U.S. retaliates, obliterating them. This is accepted. But three men acting independently take a bomb, nuke a U.S. city. How can you possibly react in a way that feels like justice?
• Well, although discussion wandered to slightly another direction, i'd like to post some links here, concerning particular Chechen case. I boggled about whether I should post it on main page, or here, and decided to post here. First - link on works of Roy Conrad, publicist. In his previous life, before emigration to Canada, he was Yurij Kondratiev, habitant of Grozny, capital city of Chechnya. His most famous text on this topic is "Grozny. A Few Days...", a tale about his personal experience of being Slavic in Chechnya during last decade of 20th century. Russian version of this text was granted russian internet literature premium "Teneta". It was translated in Engish by author himself and his canadian friends, so language is OK (much better than mine, i mean :) ). Just a few citations: What is really going on in Chechnya? How many faces does this tragedy have? In fact, even for an experienced political scientist it is very hard to offer a full account of the events and of their roots. The life of the Caucases region is a tapestry of many strands, some of which have for centuries been stained with blood, vengeance and unrest. The present conflict is a result of many political, cultural, religious and economic reasons and its complexity cannot be reduced to a small set of pivotal matters. This war has a strong smell of oil, but it would be extremely naive to state that this is merely a fight for oil-rich terrain. This war has a very distinct smell of heroin, but it would be utterly wrong to think that the Russian Government is simply trying to cut the old drug-trafficking roots. The past decade has been marked by revival of the ancient craft of ransom kidnapping and slave trade in Chechnya, however, this military operation cannot be defined as another attempt to reduce crime. This is a war for political independence and for the tribal pride, but at the same time it is a tragic sibling feud, because the Chechen society itself is dramatically split on this issue. This is a war for the unity of Russia, but at the same time there are circles in the Russian society which benefit from this warfare through shady arms deals. Finally, this war is largely about militant fundamentalist Islam, and still this struggle is not merely an anti-terrorist action similar to that carried out by the US in Afganistan. There is still more to it... I want to tell you this story as seen by the eyes of a simple citizen who happened to become a cog of the state machine in an hour when that machine started to badly falter. In my story you will not find a scientific analysis of that tragedy, but you will find an account of the everyday events, an honest sketch of that life. Possibly, some future historian will want to use it as food for thought. The second link is on site of Russian TV-channel NTV. NTV first of all channels was managed to get videotape, made in Beslan by therorrists themselves. Videotape was demonstrated by TV. And here and here is the link on photos taken from that videotape (click on inverted triangular to the right). If i would be able to get link on videofile, i'll post it here.
• Here is direct links to pictures: http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685648_20040907234441.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685649_20040907234441.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685650_20040907234442.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685651_20040907234442.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685652_20040907234442.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685653_20040907234442.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685654_20040908001927.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685655_20040907234442.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685656_20040907234957.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685657_20040907234957.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685658_20040907234957.gif http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/685663_20040908001927.gif
• So, here is a link to the whole film.