Moscow Metro Bombed

[nicky10013]

Nicky, you are engaging in the Russian equivalent of the American Left. You are blaming "us".

In Russia, some people blame the State because they assume that it always lies. In the West, the Left blames the powerful.

As to Russia, there is no question about who organized the Nord-Ost Dubrovka theatre attack. The FSB did not. In the US, only leftist lunatics question why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed in September 2001.

----

My fear is that we in the West are about to face similar terrorist attacks as Israel in the 1980s and 1990s. Britain faced a minor version under the IRA.

In the late 1800s, the western world also faced a wave of terrorism. Two US presidents were assassinated then (Garfield and McKinley), Queen Victoria survived several assassination attempts and Alexander II was killed in 1881.

So, you're going to take the word of an authoritarian country which assassinates people with polonium over the evidence? Yeesh. That's you're call, and a gutsy one at that.

[eyeball]

The basic tennet is the further we isolate nations we don't like for being anti-democratic, the more authoritarian they become. North Korea is the perfect example. The more we engage, the more we trade, the more likely it is that a nation state will transition towards democracy.

I've heard the theory but I think it assumes we're completely immune from becoming more like the authoritarians we hang with. I don't think we are and I think the crack-down get-tough attitudes we've seen developing in the west is evidence of a race to at least the middle if not the bottom. Include in that the tendency to more surveillance and greater concentration of power in the hands of the our leaders, more secrecy more fear etc etc...

[blueblood]

Wanting terrorists to be caught and brought to justice isn't condoning martial law. If you're making that leap maybe you're the one whos crazy.

But your fine with having your rights taken away because you are giving Putin a heavy endorsement.

I was born in '75 so I don't remember when he did it but I seen it on TV. I hated almost everything about PET.

Now your backpeddling. Why is it OK to have Putin to run a country with few rights, but its not OK for Trudeau to do the same thing during the October Crisis?

Don't worry I will be leaving Canada at some point but not yet. One of two conditions need to be met first.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

1. We have enough money to leave comfortably.

Doubt you have the mental capacity to make much money

2. The financial system crashes and currency becomes worthless.

Not going to happen.

This is why so many are buying precious metals and stones. Also the reason so many jewlers on TV are wanting to buy your gold. A financial crisis is expected and precious metals and stones are easily transportable and hold their value. I'm investing in these things and if you're smart you will too. It will be easier to start over someplace else with this universal currency.

I have invested in stocks in April last year, which had the highest rate of return? It's not Gold. Investing when commodities are at highs is foolish. You want to buy in a trough, not a rally. Those jewlers are taking an extremely generous commission buying your gold, people that crazy to buy into that deserve the bath they get.

I love it when people try and lecture me, a commodity producer on how to market commodities, it's priceless.

[nicky10013]

I've heard the theory but I think it assumes we're completely immune from becoming more like the authoritarians we hang with. I don't think we are and I think the crack-down get-tough attitudes we've seen developing in the west is evidence of a race to at least the middle if not the bottom. Include in that the tendency to more surveillance and greater concentration of power in the hands of the our leaders, more secrecy more fear etc etc...

The application of civil rights in democracies is almost cyclical with a series of pulls and counter pulls. It has nothing to do with the nations that our governments associate with and more to due with grassroots demand for action in terms of either strengthening or compromising guaranteed rights. The last cycle had little to do with where our money went but what happened on September 11th. People were afraid so they wanted more security and the government provided it. Once the voting public figured out what was going on, a demand to end certain practices adopted became the norm. The lesson here is that unless Canada loses significant wealth the chances of us slipping into authoritarianism are nil. Despite whatever the government does, it has to submit to elections whether it likes that fact or not. We still have the power to change our government.

[eyeball]

We still have the power to change our government.

I wish I had your faith.

[nicky10013]

I wish I had your faith.

My faith isn't in Harper, it's in political science. Above a certain GDP level, (I believe 10,000 dollars per capita [we're at 37,000]) authoritarianism simply doesn't exist.

[GostHacked]

Good to know Mr Canada is on guard for thee.

[Mr.Canada]

Good to know Mr Canada is on guard for thee.

Yes, of coarse but I'm not going to stick around on a sinking ship. Canada stopped being the country I knew years ago. Canada lets in 250k immigrants a year I doubt I'll be missed.

I don't wish to be treated like a second class citizen forever. This will only get worse the more "multicultural" Canada becomes. I'll take my assets and money elsewhere where I'm treated properly for my status in society.

[nicky10013]

Yes, of coarse but I'm not going to stick around on a sinking ship. Canada stopped being the country I knew years ago. Canada lets in 250k immigrants a year I doubt I'll be missed.

I don't wish to be treated like a second class citizen forever. This will only get worse the more "multicultural" Canada becomes. I'll take my assets and money elsewhere where I'm treated properly for my status in society.

Translation: I only like to live in white places.

I fail to see where you're going to go where it'll be any better.

[Oleg Bach]

LETS say that the RUSSIAN administration is legit...and lets say that the selling of nuclear weapons hardware by enterprising former KGB guys is just grand..and lets say that terrorists are nut bars..who are to stupid to understand that freedom begins in the mind and spirit not with explosives..it's evil on all sides.

[wyly]

suicide bombing is a horrible thing but after what the Russians did to Chechnya it shouldn't come as a surprise there are people willing to give up their lives in revenge...

refuse people the right to self determination with violence and then expect them to reply with violence ...

[Oleg Bach]

suicide bombing is a horrible thing but after what the Russians did to Chechnya it shouldn't come as a surprise there are people willing to give up their lives in revenge...

refuse people the right to self determination with violence and then expect them to reply with violence ...

HOPE this does not put us on the no fly list--butt---people do not make themselves insane- they are tormented into insanity-- just like poverty- no person intentionally makes himself poor--It is done to them...ooops....here come the guys in the dark suits on prozac.

[eyeball]

My faith isn't in Harper, it's in political science. Above a certain GDP level, (I believe 10,000 dollars per capita [we're at 37,000]) authoritarianism simply doesn't exist.

But it could. Looking at it this way using GDP per capita helps explain the lack of democracy experienced on some native reserves.

Is the science settled? What's the ratio of consensus vs skepticism compared to oh say, the science underlying AGW theories - are these numbers in a similar range at the expert level 95/5 or 90/10 or so? Is that 5 - 10% level of doubt enough to throw PS theories out the window?

[wyly]

HOPE this does not put us on the no fly list--butt---people do not make themselves insane- they are tormented into insanity-- just like poverty- no person intentionally makes himself poor--It is done to them...ooops....here come the guys in the dark suits on prozac.

"tormented", they've seen their people raped, kidnapped, tortured/mutilated, murdered, civilian executions, genocide...it amazing to see the russians go through this act of pretending to be completely surprised by the actions of suicide bombers, they're bringing a small sample to Moscow of what Russia has inflicted on them...

[nicky10013]

But it could. Looking at it this way using GDP per capita helps explain the lack of democracy experienced on some native reserves.

Is the science settled? What's the ratio of consensus vs skepticism compared to oh say, the science underlying AGW theories - are these numbers in a similar range at the expert level 95/5 or 90/10 or so? Is that 5 - 10% level of doubt enough to throw PS theories out the window?

Is the science settled? Why wouldn't it be? The examples are there and easy to prove unlike AGW which thoroughly more complicated.

Furthermore, there isn't much doubt about AGW either. "Shockingly" (said with mocking disdain) the scientists whose emails started the uproar have been cleared of falsifying data.

Edited April 1, 2010 by nicky10013

[Mr.Canada]

Translation: I only like to live in white places.

I fail to see where you're going to go where it'll be any better.

No, race has nothing to do with it for me. It's about attitude, I dislike the perptetual victimhood of this nation where everyone has constantly got their hand out for money.

[nicky10013]

No, race has nothing to do with it for me. It's about attitude, I dislike the perptetual victimhood of this nation where everyone has constantly got their hand out for money.

Again, looking outside of Canada, where else is it any better?

[DogOnPorch]

suicide bombing is a horrible thing but after what the Russians did to Chechnya it shouldn't come as a surprise there are people willing to give up their lives in revenge...

refuse people the right to self determination with violence and then expect them to reply with violence ...

Innocent l'il Chechnya...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)

[August1991]

Don't worry I'm sure whoever's in charge will do what's needed to make things safe.

If right-wingers think we have a Nanny state now...just wait till Daddy get's up.

Eyeball, Israel built a wall to separate itself from Palestinians. I fear that we will have to do something similar. I don't know if I would characterize the building of a wall an example of a Nanny-State or Daddy-State but once again, maybe I'm wrong.

So, you're going to take the word of an authoritarian country which assassinates people with polonium over the evidence? Yeesh. That's you're call, and a gutsy one at that.

I'm not defending all the actions of all Russian governments (or all US governments, for that matter).

I am simply pointing out that Muslim fanatics have used terrorist tactics in Moscow (the Dubrovka theatre), and in New York. These were not domestic security operations.

suicide bombing is a horrible thing but after what the Russians did to Chechnya it shouldn't come as a surprise there are people willing to give up their lives in revenge...

refuse people the right to self determination with violence and then expect them to reply with violence ...

Be careful wyly, with little change, your argument could equally apply against people in Canada or the US.

In effect, you are blaming the people killed in those Moscow Metro trains for those bombings.

-----

I fear that some people have lost their moral compass.

First of all, I happen to think that a legitimate State can use violence. (We in Canada imprison criminals, often by force.) Second, I also happen to think that there is good and evil. (Clifford Olson is an evil person. Around the world, people like Olson manage to become religious, social or political leaders.)

[wyly]

Be careful wyly, with little change, your argument could equally apply against people in Canada or the US.

and if our soldiers were guilty of the crimes committed by Russian troops they would be justified attacking us...

In effect, you are blaming the people killed in those Moscow Metro trains for those bombings.

in effect yes, in a democracy the government is ultimately the choice of the people...if we elect a government that lets our troops run amuck robbing, kidnapping, torturing, raping, murderering and we do not object and nothing to stop them we are as a people condoning those crimes guilty of those crimes...

I fear that some people have lost their moral compass.

yes you have, someone with a moral compass would have investigated what I posted to see if there was truth in it, you have not, you have lost your moral compass...

First of all, I happen to think that a legitimate State can use violence.

a legitimate state does not authorize murder, rape, torture and genocide...then act surprised when the victims lash out in revenge...

now find your compass and do the research...here I'll give you a start point, type Russian atrocities chechnya into the google search engine..and then when you're done with web searches click on images

Edited April 2, 2010 by wyly

[Bonam]

in effect yes, in a democracy the government is ultimately the choice of the people...if we elect a government that lets our troops run amuck robbing, kidnapping, torturing, raping, murderering and we do not object and nothing to stop them we are as a people condoning those crimes guilty of those crimes...

I guess the Gazans really have it coming to them after electing the Hamas government. I guess it would be ok if we just wiped them all from existence since they are responsible for electing a terrorist group as their government. Do you agree?

a legitimate state does not authorize murder, rape, torture and genocide...then act surprised when the victims lash out in revenge...

What one person calls murder, another may consider a casualty of war. As for torture, coercive interrogation is sometimes necessary, even relatively "freedom-loving" nations like the US seem to realize this and employ it when necessary. And as for genocide, that term gets bandied around by people around so much these days it has lost most of its meaning.

Also, whether the state is "surprised" or not, its first duty is to protect its own people. When they are attacked by terrorists, even if those terrorists may have had some legitimate grievance, the state should take actions to keep its citizens safe, and those actions should most certainly include carrying out military operations against the terrorists.

now find your compass and do the research...here I'll give you a start point, type Russian atrocities chechnya into the google search engine..and then when you're done with web searches click on images

The atrocities that the Russian government and army may have committed in Chechnya are not the fault of innocents in theaters or in metro stations. If these people you are championing were truly "freedom fighters" and not terrorists, they would focus on fighting the forces that are oppressing them, freeing their captured prisoners, defending their villages and civilians, etc. Instead, they go off and perform suicide attacks. They care not for their lives or for their freedom, they care only about murdering civilians and inflicting suffering. That is why they are terrorists, and why they must be hunted down and eliminated.

[nicky10013]

I guess the Gazans really have it coming to them after electing the Hamas government. I guess it would be ok if we just wiped them all from existence since they are responsible for electing a terrorist group as their government. Do you agree?

Both Israel and Palestine have it coming to them. They're both stupid in my books but what can ya do?

What one person calls murder, another may consider a casualty of war. As for torture, coercive interrogation is sometimes necessary, even relatively "freedom-loving" nations like the US seem to realize this and employ it when necessary. And as for genocide, that term gets bandied around by people around so much these days it has lost most of its meaning.

It's never necessary because it has never worked. People interrogated "coercively" are far more likely to give you anything to make the "coercion" stop. The NKVD under Stalin could make people confess to anything.

Also, whether the state is "surprised" or not, its first duty is to protect its own people. When they are attacked by terrorists, even if those terrorists may have had some legitimate grievance, the state should take actions to keep its citizens safe, and those actions should most certainly include carrying out military operations against the terrorists.

Perhaps the best course of action for the government is to cease and desist the activities which provoked the attack in the first place.

The atrocities that the Russian government and army may have committed in Chechnya are not the fault of innocents in theaters or in metro stations. If these people you are championing were truly "freedom fighters" and not terrorists, they would focus on fighting the forces that are oppressing them, freeing their captured prisoners, defending their villages and civilians, etc. Instead, they go off and perform suicide attacks. They care not for their lives or for their freedom, they care only about murdering civilians and inflicting suffering. That is why they are terrorists, and why they must be hunted down and eliminated.

I see your point and I agree with it to a certain degree. Yet, with your own moral relativism on something like torture, I'll indulge in a bit of my own. The notion that the deaths of civilians that had nothing to do with conflict I don't think speaks to the complexity of the situation. You raise Gaza and Chechnya as an example and bring up suicide attacks. What the west seems to forget is that A) we kill civilians, too. Despite intention, does that make us any better in their eyes? Gaza and Chechnya don't have militaries and have finite resources with which to conduct operations against their enemy. In order to inflict the most damage on their opponent, which is most feasible? Attack an army which can't be destroyed or shock them in an attempt them to cease the behaviours which led to the conflict in the first place? Strategically speaking, the latter choice clearly makes the most sense.

I think it's stupid. Historically it only further galvanizes opposition to such groups. Yet, I can understand the need to resort them.

Edited April 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[August1991]

... now find your compass and do the research...

Wyly, your points/arguments remind me of Leftist/Socialist Jews in Poland in 1938.

Your logic may seem correct but you are really missing the point. IOW, your logic assumes too much. (As they say, "assume" makes an ass of u and me.)

[Bonam]

It's never necessary because it has never worked. People interrogated "coercively" are far more likely to give you anything to make the "coercion" stop. The NKVD under Stalin could make people confess to anything.

There is certainly truth to that. But in many cases it may be possible to verify the information obtained within a relatively short time frame. For an intelligence agency, identifying if a subject is responding truthfully or not can often be determined. In such situations, coercive interrogations can produce useful results.

Perhaps the best course of action for the government is to cease and desist the activities which provoked the attack in the first place.

Yes because we all know if you lay down your guns your enemies will too and everyone will live happily in peace ever after. Or, more likely, your pissed off enemies will take the opportunity to inflict even more severe damage on you while you are experimenting with pacifism.

I see your point and I agree with it to a certain degree. Yet, with your own moral relativism on something like torture, I'll indulge in a bit of my own.

Frankly, I see no "relativism" in allowing coercive interrogation of dangerous terrorists that have critical information.

The notion that the deaths of civilians that had nothing to do with conflict I don't think speaks to the complexity of the situation. You raise Gaza and Chechnya as an example and bring up suicide attacks. What the west seems to forget is that A) we kill civilians, too.

There is a difference between killing civilians accidentally as a side effect of attacking a legitimate target, and setting out to kill civilians.

Despite intention, does that make us any better in their eyes?

No in "their" eyes we are "the great Satan", pretty much regardless of what we do.

Gaza and Chechnya don't have militaries and have finite resources with which to conduct operations against their enemy. In order to inflict the most damage on their opponent, which is most feasible? Attack an army which can't be destroyed or shock them in an attempt them to cease the behaviours which led to the conflict in the first place? Strategically speaking, the latter choice clearly makes the most sense.

This is not an example of prudent strategic thinking. Striking at your enemy's civilians is only likely to enrage them and force them to respond with even more harsh measures. On the other hand, if they restricted their operations to more legitimate targets, they would 1) not provoke as harsh of a response, 2) generate international sympathy and support for their cause, and 3) maybe actually succesfully protect some of their own people, on whose behalf they are supposedly fighting. There are many instances throughout history of guerilla groups successfully conducting operations against organized armies.

The fact that they instead throw their lives away in counterproductive suicide attacks shows, like I said earlier, that they do not care about either life or freedom. They are not fighting to protect their people, or to win their freedom. They do what they do simply to inflict suffering.

I think it's stupid. Historically it only further galvanizes opposition to such groups. Yet, I can understand the need to resort them.

The only time to resort to terrorist tactics is when your cause is hopelessly lost, your people are dead, and you have nothing left to live for but hatred and vengeance.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Bonam

[August1991]

What the west seems to forget is that A) we kill civilians, too. Despite intention, does that make us any better in their eyes? Gaza and Chechnya don't have militaries and have finite resources with which to conduct operations against their enemy. In order to inflict the most damage on their opponent, which is most feasible? Attack an army which can't be destroyed or shock them in an attempt them to cease the behaviours which led to the conflict in the first place? Strategically speaking, the latter choice clearly makes the most sense.

Blame the victim, or suggest that the oppressed have a legitimate claim.

Sorry, Nicky. Wrong on both points.

We in the West, and that includes Israel, are products of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Method. We, like ancient Athenians, prefer democracy. We are prepared to listen to legitimate, contrary arguments.

We now are facing superstitious Medieval fanatics, people from a different era, from a Dark Age.