September 09, 2004

• Sounds like an excuse to go out and kill someone rather than trying to address the problems that are causing the violence in the first place.
• Brutal rulers back up each other's brutality. Film at 11.
• Film at 11. No thanks. I hate those movies about shooting naked kids in the back. *goes over to the Shaolin Soccer line*
• It seems... incongruent, for Ms. Klein, who has in the past spoken rather eloquently on behalf of feminism, to employ her talents on behalf of a religious ethos that has benighted attitudes toward women, in what approximates an analogy of the victim-deserved-it argument, so hideously employed in courtrooms all over this land against the victims of rape. Russia is not innocent of wrongdoing in Chechnya, as Israel is similarly not in Palestine. But to posit, however timorously, that they *deserved* Belsan or were somehow complicit in it adds insult to horrific injury while attempting to somehow rationalize the indiscriminate shooting of fleeing, starved, scared children. There simply is no earthly slight that could even remotely justify what the Chechen rebels have done, and I sincerely hope that the rest of Chechnya sees this and condemns it, even as the Arab world is slowly coming round to discussing the reality of Islamic terror. Because if they do not (and so far, I have heard nought but silence from Grozny, and in my book silence connotes affirmation), I personally cannot see any reason why Russia should deal with Chechnya in any but the most direct manner. With all that implies.
• From Klein's article: ...The essence of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocents to further political goals. Any claims its perpetrators make to fighting for justice are morally bankrupt and lead directly to the barbarity of Beslan: a carefully laid plan to slaughter hundreds of children on their first day of school. ... There has, indeed, been a dramatic and dangerous rise in religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world. How this article, in any sense, amounts to a statement "on behalf" of Islam or terrorists is beyond me, Fes. With respect, I can't help but feel that to suggest it is comes worryingly close to the old lie - that even considering the notion of causes for such events is equivalent to justifying them; that there can be no alternative to the orthodox view of "a never-ending battle for [our] survival against irrational forces that seek nothing less than [our] total extermination". As Klein says, "The problem is that, under the Likud doctrine, there is no space to ask why this is happening."
• Hence my calling her rationalization "timorous." She couches her charge, which I can't view any other way save for how I've described, with these caveats to soften the blow of what, in my opinion, she's truly trying to say: that Russia, like Israel, has somehow earned these acts. I agree that the causes of terror should be examined. But I differ from Klein in that I believe that those causes should not be examined to *understand* what prompts these acts (because the unstated purpose of understanding, after all, is sympathy), but to better allow us all to fight those who would use them. The phrase "...then the terrorists have won" is overused these days, but in my opinion, when one begins to imagine they understand why a nationalist movement (or any movement, really) resorts to shooting children, to bombing cafes, to flying planes into buildings? Then it justifies, just a little bit, those actions. We all know why this is happening - because there are those people who feel that the furtherance their political or religious ideology is worth more than a few little lives. There is no diplomacy that can address that, no amount of study and discussion that can turn someone who would strap on explosives and enter a school into anything but a monster. Honestly, I'm not sure that such things are worth understanding, if sympathy is, as I believe, the inevitable byproduct, for I never want to reach a point where I feel the slightest amount of sympathy for those who would commit these acts. I appreciate your candor and your treating my opinions with respect, flashboy. Be assured the feeling is reciprocated.
• But, Fes, if your goal is to defeat an enemy I think it might be helpful to understand them. The thought process, for instance, could run something like this: - 1.3 billion Muslims - 200 million of whom believe now (much fewer on 9/12) they support Al Qaeda and its ilk - 100,000 Jihadists. Control and eliminate the third; woo the second; keep the first from drifting into the second. (lifted from here)
• When I was at a conference in Kuwait in 94, there were large signs on streets saying "Remember the POWs", and every broadcast day on KTV started with a reminder about how bad the Iraqi invasion was and a prayer for the POWs. When I visited the family there early this year, there was open talk of supporting the Iraqi resistance and ejecting the damn Americans from Kuwait. It doesn't require a genius to see that the Iraq war is taken by large numbers of Arabs as an insult to their honour, which if you know anything about Islam, is about as bad as things can get. Al Quaeda doesn't even figure into it. 200 mil. supporters seems ludicrous to me (not an expert in Arab affairs).
• Honestly, I don't see Islam as the enemy, even those that voice support for al Qaeda and are ostensibly anti-American. I have no problem if the majority of Muslims don't like America or its policies - it's a big world, with plenty of room for all of us, and there is a lot of good that can come from having a large group of reasonable, reasoned detractors. Honest criticism, whether personal or national in scope, is some of the most valuable info one may obtain. And to be honest, while I don't *like* it, I can understand the impetus to use violence against those soldiers you perceive to be your enemy. When Iraqi insurgents attack American soldiers in Baghdad, while I (again) don't like it, I can understand it. But when a person purposefully targets (or exhorts someone else to do so and provides them the tools to do so) innocents for the sole purpose of making a point? That, I have no wish to either understand or sympathize. Perhaps the affront to the Islamic sense of honor is poignant - well, I too believe I have a sense of personal honor, and while I can imagine situations where I might be prompted to attack, even kill, those who have wronged me or those I love, I would never - EVER - target their children, or the random children of those whom I have never met, or the innocent shoppers and cafe-goers and cubicle toilers who have never done anything to me other than lay claim to a nationality, creed or religion that those who may have wronged me similarly claim.
• We are hurtling ... into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance This Guardian story seems to make a case (to me at least) for understanding the causes of the Belsen crisis. Ruslan Ausev (who has previously stated he believes in a political solution in Chechnya) was able to negotiate the release of some hostages before events took the tragic turn they did. Negotiations and political settlements require understanding. If people are regarded and treated as 'monsters' then we shouldn't be surprised if they begin to act that way.
• You sound baffled and frustrated Fes - hell, I know I am. The latest bombing in Indonesia...crushing. But much as I doubt that there would be anything useful to learn from the thugs who occupied that school, there is still that nagging possibility that maybe there was someone in there who could be talked to. And as I read the first piece tGL linked to, it seems there really was room for negotiations.
• I agree with the Gentleman Loser in that, if the possibility that negotiations would have saved some or all of those children at Belsan, they should have been initiated. I don't know everything there is to know about the details of what went on there - I have avoided reading much news or looking at photgraphs of it. Those children all have my sons' faces, and it is nearly unbearable to look at. But my understanding is that there were some negotiations going on, and some captives released, before the situation devolved. But I disagree with the assertion: If people are regarded and treated as 'monsters' then we shouldn't be surprised if they begin to act that way. You've got the timeline reversed, TGL - it is how people act that determines whether they are monsters, not the other way around. Like respect, monsterhood is earned, not randomly applied. I am baffled and frustrated, as much by the unfathomable and alien thought process that prompts a person or group to do these things as I am by my individual inability to stop it. I want my sons to know a world where being an American - or an Israeli, or a Russian, or a Palestinian, or an Iraqi - does not automatically make you a target. I don't want them to have to try and understand why some people think that blowing up a school or a marketplace or a cafe is acceptable. I don't want to see uncomprehending mortal fear on their faces, or have them hear the sound of bullets seeking them fron behind, or the sound of plate glass shattering into shrapnel as they linger over their lunches. What I want is them to come to me when they are older and say, "Dad, is it true, these things happened?" and I can reply "Yes, but they don't anymore."
• The one thing that blows my mind is how people think killing terrorists will help anything. These are _suicide_bombers_. They _want_ to die. In war, as is so often pointed out, there are civilian casualties. On both sides. Not to mention the humiliation of occupation. Just as renewed violence makes Bush's resolve stronger, so attacking Iraq has , has exacerbated the real problems that incite people to join the Al Qaeda. I hate to break it to you, but the whole concept of a war on terror is futile. Remember what happened to end the terrorism in Norhern Ireland - hint: they didn't carpet-bomb areas terrorists were known to frequent. I say this not because I support the killing of innocent children. Face it: war is hell. People die who don't deserve to die on both sides. The chain of blame stretches deep into the darkness of the past. Both sides is convinced that it is in the right. War has always been this way. All I'm saying is this: Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
• Some additional information on Chechnya problem, with some kind of analysis, for those who is interested in it: First, a reasonable good article on Winds of Change, pretty comprehensive view, written in English by non-russian. Second, if somebody overlooked last two my posts to the old thread on Beslan tragedy, one of this posts contain link on site of chechen refugee, now citizen of Canada. It is a kind of memoires, written in English, by Slavic, former citizen of Russian Federation.
• I'm 100% on-side with Fes on this one. What happened in Belsan was not an act of war, as calimehtar suggests; it was an act of cowardice. Terrorism has become a far too popular method of gaining exposure for trivial causes. If it continues unchecked there *will* be an all-out war against Islam. I don't want to see that. I heard recently that the Russians used to bury Chechen terrorists wrapped in pigskin, to send a message to would-be suicide bombers that there would be no free trip to heaven for these so-called martyrs. I'm not sure what I think about that...when I first heard it I thought it was a little over the top...but right know I can't think of a compelling reason not to revive the practice.
• The truly amazing thing about the "war on terror" is the ASTONISHING lack of perspective. We're actually taking Russia's side against Chechnya! RUSSIA!! Go back a few years. Would we have taken the USSR's side against Romania or Bulgaria because a few people there used "terrorism" to fight back? Putin is well on the way to bringing Russia back to its former status, but that's OK b/c he's "fighting terrorism?" Amazing to me. Terrorism is by its very nature an attack of weakness, by people who so little power they have no other choice- it may cause casualities but by definition is not a threat to national security. Al Qaeda is never going to inavde us and overthrow our government. A threat to personal safety is different than a threat to national security.
• Well, i think you should study facts well, drjimmy. Chechen terrorism IS threat to the national security of Russia, because a few years ago Russia gave Chechnya freedom and possibility to build own state from the very beginning. But instead of it, they tried to invade Dagestan, another part of Russian Federation. Their attempt triggered Second Chechen War. And if you study resolutions of chechen leaders, you'd find, that bringing "freedom" to Chechnya is not their's exclusive goal. They intent to unite all North-Caucasian republics under Chechen government, and to establish Islamic repuplic with strict shari'ah law. But, even if one could think, that Chechnya is rebellious republic that wants freedom from Russia, other republics of Russian Federaton doesn't want to share Chechnya's political way.
• Never mind that there are Russians who would think that 'the Jews' were behind this insanity.
• > there are Russians who would think that 'the Jews' were behind this insanity So what?
• Terrorism is by its very nature an attack of weakness, by people who so little power they have no other choice Bin Laden had no power? His family is one of the wealthiest and most powerful in Saudi Arabia. The scum who shot children on their first day of school had no other choice? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, drjimmy.
• What drjimmy is talking about is the fact that, like it or not, terrorism is a tactic of unequal warfare; the line between guerilla warfare and terrorism is a fine one, and often in the eyes of the beholder. They see themselves as freedom fighters - and to them that will justify what they do. Just like our governments justify what they do in the name of security. There is no good and bad here, just more and more evil, and, like calimehtar says, it's going to get worse before it gets better. War has always been this way - and, uniforms or not, innocents have always died in great numbers, often murdered in much worse ways than being shot in the back or blown up.
• You've got the timeline reversed, TGL - it is how people act that determines whether they are monsters, not the other way around. Like respect, monsterhood is earned, not randomly applied I couldn't disagree with you more Fes, the hostage takers were not born 'monsters', they didn't just wake up one morning and decide to do this. The Chechen conflict is a vicious one with atrocities against civilians commited by both sides. (See these pages from human rights watch which give some details of human rights abuses by Russian forces). Atrocities by either side simply breed further atrocities, and dehumanising your enemy is simply a way of making it easier to commit atrocities against them. But instead of it, they tried to invade Dagestan, another part of Russian Federation. From this BBC report: In August 1999, Chechen fighters crossed into the neighbouring Russian Republic of Dagestan to support a declaration by an Islamic body based there of an independent Islamic state in parts of Dagestan and Chechnya. and from here On 7 August 1999, an estimated 1,200 armed men
• Just because the terrorists have the same political goal as others wishing to see an independent Chechnya doesn't mean that the desire for an independent Chechnya isn't a legitimate political goal.
• I disagree. I think the world needs less Islamist states, not more.
• I disagree. I think the world needs less Islamist states, not more. Yeah. I mean, like there's no peace in that religion and stuff.
• Islamism isn't a religion. It's a political ideology. And, like there's no peace in that political ideology and stuff.
• Rocket, from the top of your link: the neutrality of this article is disputed The talk page for the dispute gives an idea of greater complexities involved in the ideology of Islamism than you are prepared to give it: Clearly the belief that Islam should be a governing system is one held by non-violent Muslims as well as violent ones, just as this is true of Christians and Marxists. Islamism, at is most basic form, is a claim about ends, violence is a choice of means.
• I disagree. I think the world needs less Islamist states, not more. Yeah, you're right, that self-determination shit should only go so far.
• Do you want to see more countries where young women are stoned to death for having sex? Where children are routinely executed? Where women and girls are not allowed to be educated? That is what Islamism means, and what it brings. Self-determination be damned. Was the U.S. Confederacy given the right of self-determination? Was Nazi Germany given the right of self-determination? Should they have been?
• Here's an article on Islamism, as opposed to Islam.
• Terrorists just aren't that different from the rest of us.