Russian: Yet another victim of terrorism

[Guest eureka]

So true. The use of the word values to support the wrongs the West is committing is a blasphemy.

[takeanumber]

I once saw an argument that the first person who brings up Hitler and the Nazis in an argument automatically loses the argument. I don't think it is true in all cases but I wonder about this one. What is the actual correlation between a nation of Germans under a charismatic leader with a large conventional army, and a highly fragmented fundamentalist terrorist movement? What is the price for us not understanding the difference, especially in trying to repsond militarily by attacking nations instead of cells and politically blaming an entire religion?

What does Nazi-ism and Islamism have in common?

They're both totalitarian systems.

And once a totalitarian system comes to power, they always fail to deliever what they promise.

And so they turn to the one thing they can deliever: destruction and death.

Now I don't know how much you actually know about the Koran or Islamist though in general, but even a pretty 'moderate' country like Pakistan ought to cause you discomfort, that is of course, unless you truly hold high the banner of human rights.

The people who say that an Islamic government is freedom, are the same people who say that keeping a woman in a burqua and keeping them from school, or driving, is liberation. It's a religion replete with doublespeak.

Do muslims have the right to their religion?

Within the personal sphere only.

The momment religious people impose their religious beliefs politically on all of society, you create a vaccum in which reason cannot exist.

To protect the freedom of religion, the human right to religion, you must keep religion in your personal sphere.

The English knew it. We inherited it.

Radical muslims do NOT have the right to impose their version of their religion on other muslims. That includes Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.

Radical muslims, moreover, do NOT have the right to impose their version of their religion on the Western World, which they are seeking to do through blunt force.

Their object is clear, just as it is with any other totalitirian regime.

As for the charges of red-herring-ism.

It's curious how some people on the left, and the right, are so incredibly pro-human rights....up to the point that it applies to white people.

But the momment that we talk about any other colour, oops! suddenly they go numb, and pro-human rights and human dignity go out the window in favour of saying "oh, that's their culture and we should respect that."

Bull.

They won't let us live next to them in peace. The only answer to totalitarianism is to destory it. Period.

I know that people from the far left are used to having everybody else in society carry the costs and burdens of life for them, so it comes as no surprise then that the cost of freedom is included in that too.

-----------------------------------------------

You can try to say "oh, but what about Chechnya' all you want.

You're still, in my view, rationalizing it.

What has gone on in Chechnya is terrible. But you know, did I get any support from you, or anybody else on the Left, twelve years ago when I warned of the war?

Nope.

And when the fighting began, did anybody from the Left, or for that matter, the Right, support me in my call for intervention?

Nope.

After all, came the refrain, "we have to respect the Russian culture".

So these tears from the Left regarding the poor Chechens are that of crocodiles.

The left didn't give a rats ass about Chechnya until it was convinient for them to use it as a ploy against Putin.

And yes, that's pretty damn sick of you.

Take your fake concern, and your "we're just trying to understand why it happened" nonsense and shove it.

What happened in that school was wrong and totally, completely, uncalled for and horrific, NOTWITHSTANDING what has gone on in Chechnya in the past decade, which frankly, you didn't give a damn about until last week.

[August1991]

Let us stand up to superstition. Let us stand up to those who believe in cartomancy rather than an open-mind.

Our forefathers (and using our beliefs, our foremothers) died to make our stands possible.

Galileo Galilei said, after torture, "But it moves!"

We must say the same to these Islamic idiots as our ancestors said to the Christian idiots.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber and August 1991,

It would seem as though you are calling for a 'crusade', or war with the intention of the elimination of Islam.

They won't let us live next to them in peace. The only answer to totalitarianism is to destory it. Period.

(This reminds me of a 'Kids in the Hall skit, where a 'white' taxi driver was talking to some other cabbies of 'African decent'. He said to them, "When I say 'niggers', I don't mean you guys, I just mean the 'bad niggers".)

It has been said by some that this following quote is crap.

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself

(actually, not by some, it was by takeanumber). However, the notion of war against Islam can only be looked at pragmatically by me.

Would it be a good thing in the long run? Would it be 'good enough' just to confront the tenets and authority of all the religions? Would it require the deaths of 1.3 billion Muslims? What would the cost be in terms of lives to 'the infidels'?

I would guess the human cost would be 2-3 billion people. The world is overpopulated anyway, so a major cull could be helpful. What would happen to those non-muslim countries whom the west sees as a threat as well? Would atheistic China see this as their opportunity to expand? I would guess 'undoubtedly'. So, we might need to consider an extra 1 billion chinese to eradicate. Better save some bullets after the Crusade against Islam.

[kimmy]

Dear takeanumber and August 1991,

It would seem as though you are calling for a 'crusade', or war with the intention of the elimination of Islam.

He said "Islamism", which is not the same as Islam.

The difference between the two is about as important as it gets, in my opinion.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I realize what the distinction is. However, the two are drawing closer, and the attitude of

They won't let us live next to them in peace. The only answer to totalitarianism is to destory it. Period.

combined with 'the keeping of the status quo' and the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan will only draw them closer still.

[takeanumber]

Thx Kimmy.

The Koran is a complete guide to how to run a society.

The Bible is a complete guide to how to run your life, and there are bits in there about how to run a society.

Moderate and 'secularized' Christians have long since dismissed large parts of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) as being methaphoric. Nobody takes some of those things seriously.

Moderate and 'secularized' Muslims have a similar view of their Koran. Many Muslims (Turks come to mind) believe that state and religion should be seperated.

Other don't subscribe to the repression of women, the cutting off of limbs as remedies, and the rabid anti-semitism found within the pages of the Koran.

I'm not advocating the genocide of 1.2 billion people.

I'm not advocating a 'crusade' in the traditional sense where all muslims are labelled as 'infadels'.

I believe that most regimes in the middle east are using the extremist interpretation of Islam to keep a lock on power, to justify repression, torture, and in Sudan and Palestine, genocide.

The war has to be against totalitarian Islamism.

It has to be against these regimes, and it has to be against their terrorist cohorts. (The war between Saudia Arabia and Al Queda can best be understood in terms of the Soviets fighting the Nazi's., one believes that they are holier than the other.)

The West needs to provide back up to secularized and moderate muslims.

----------------------------

I remind you that nobody here, on the Left gave a damn about Chechnya last month. Nobody here supported a secularized seperate state for them.

You didn't care.

It's disgustingly opportunistic of you to rationalize the horror just because you have a bone to pick with Putin.

What's the correct answer in my view?

It's horrific how in Chechnya, the legitimate desires of the moderate, seculized majority of Chechens were victimized by their extremist Islamist brothers, and the conduct of Russian troops during the war has in fact been horrible.

Full Stop.

It's horrific how extremist Islamists gunned children in the back, and how, I'm sure, several so-called mullah's approve of this.

Full Stop.

The two issues are distinct and seperate. There is nothing rational, acceptable, or negotiable with these people. Chechen independance and these Islamists are seperate issues.

You, grinding your Putin axe with the blood of Russian children, is the real shame here.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is absurd to blame Putin, Russians or Bush for the murder of those children.  Yet many posters to this thread have done basically that.  These same posters would no doubt have found ways in 1938 to blame England, France and even Poland for the looming threat of Nazi Germany.

We should be a little more sophisticated than this rigid concept of either/or 'blame'.

To say French policies helped lead to WWII is not exonerating Hitler of his crimes, it's simply explaining part of why/how they were carried out.

Consider a situation ... you're in line for the theatre. Ahead of you, a woman suddenly shoves a guy. It seems like aggression ... until you realize that he was standing on her foot.

[takeanumber]

It is agression.

It doesn't 'seem' like agression.

Using that same analogy, it could be implied that the Jews had it comming, right? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that's not what you intended.

There's literally nothing to understand here.

The acts of violence against children is horrific, in spite of attempts to diminish the scale of the terror by trying to rationalize and 'understand the motivation'.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is agression.

It doesn't 'seem' like agression.

I don't understand.

Using that same analogy, it could be implied that the Jews had it comming, right?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that's not what you intended.

Spare me your passive/abusive rhetoric, please. In some cases there are explanations which involve an action by the apparent victim, other times the apparent victim is indeed simply a victim of someone's bad conduct. The point is there are both kinds of cases and it's necessary to make the distinction.

There's literally nothing to understand here.  The acts of violence against children is horrific, ...

Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured. This is not a question of 'blame', it is a simply factual question of whether some choices lead to some outcomes. Value judgements come later.

[August1991]

Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured.

WTF?

TS, it is that kind of moral reasoning that I find objectionable and apparently, you are oblivious.

"If I had just given my car to the thief, he never would have had to steal it from me."

----

There are two points here that bear repeating:

1) The English-speaking/North American Left has a simplistic morality: defend the perceived "underdog" regardless. (At the moment, the Chechens are the perceived "underdog".)

2) Western values are the product of people standing up to obscurantism and superstition. The debates on this forum are evidence of western values. Unfortunately, many people in the world still reason like 12th century Christian monks. We should condemn such nonsense just as Voltaire, Galileo and Copernicus condemned the nonsense in their time.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Let's draw some parallels, here shall we? The independence fight for Chechnya against the Russians vs. the independance fight of the US against the British.

-Both the Chechens and the 'Americans' were fighting an 'underdog battle'.

-Both of the underdogs employed the 'unconventional' and (thereby viewed as 'ungentlemanly') methods of guerilla warfare.

-Both of the underdogs were willing to slaughter women and children to achieve their aims (Albeit the US did so to suppress, and exact vengeance upon, the Aboriginal peoples, not the British)

-Both of the underdogs wanted to be free of what they felt was an unfair, and 'imperialistic' or foriegn, occupation of 'their land'.

Further, the US, in the past, employed such tactics as 'false white-flag surrender' as a battle tactic. (notably against the Seminole Chief Osceola, who had been engaged in guerilla warfare against the US himself. After being tricked by the white flag and captured, most of Osceolas' tribe were exterminated over the next couple of years.)

Past history, to be sure, but if the US itself was created by guerilla warfare, deliberately targetting women and children, genocide and perfidy, who are they to judge?

[takeanumber]

Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured. This is not a question of 'blame', it is a simply factual question of whether some choices lead to some outcomes. Value judgements come later.

August has already done a great job in replying to this, so I won't repeat a similar arguement.

Past history, to be sure, but if the US itself was created by guerilla warfare, deliberately targetting women and children, genocide and perfidy, who are they to judge?

We can trace the roots of this conflict right back to the mythical roots of Isiah and Abraham, or to what happened at Mecca and Medina back around 700 A.D.

The fact remains: the universal enemy to our way of life, our freedom of religion (the freedom to, in our personal sphere, to worship a spoon, or Jesus, or Allah if we want to), and liberal democracy, are totalitarian Islamists.

Anything they do to attack us, including gunning our children down in the back, is an afront to all of us, including the Left Wing's right to be wrong about nearly every issue nearly all the time.

That right is under attack right now.

All I'm saying is that perhaps those on the Left, although your accustomed to having everything fought for you, at least have the common courtesy of being disgusted by the gunning down of children and not to justify the violence.

It's a human decency thing.

[Guest eureka]

The two are most definitely not "distinct and separate." Most terrorism is rooted in the real ot perceived oppression of a dominating state or culture.

That in no way excuses terrorism but it does go some way to explaining it.

It is most unfortunate that some are using the horror of this incident as a justification for greater acts of violence still: using it in the same way that the Bush administration used the WTC. Putin is sabre rattling to get his administration of the hook as did Bush.

I wonder whether the world will ever get serious about terrorism. Terrorism exists in almost every corner of the Globe yet we, in the West, persist in calling terror only those things that happen to be against our interests. All the while aggravating the coditions that are at the heart of terrorism and creating greater numbers of terrorists.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

That right is under attack right now.

You are wrong.

My only suggestion can be that you open you eyes while you lie, so you can be in on the joke.

Freedom and democracy are not under attack, US foriegn policy is. You may disagree with the methods, as do I, but to be blind of the factors means you will never see the solution.

[takeanumber]

Dear takeanumber,

QUOTE

That right is under attack right now.

You are wrong.

My only suggestion can be that you open you eyes while you lie, so you can be in on the joke.

Freedom and democracy are not under attack, US foriegn policy is. You may disagree with the methods, as do I, but to be blind of the factors means you will never see the solution.

I see...so when I suppose the Nazi's were only attacking French foreign policy then?

lol.

Get your head out of the sand! Islamists won't stop until we're all converted or all dead.

It's that simple.

That's all totalitarianism can produce: death and destruction.

You're a fool to think that all Islamists want is 'freedom'. They want the opposite. They want the Islamic form of freedom, which IS repression.

Do yourself a favour and actually read Bin Laden's statements, some of the statements from British, Iranian and Saudi Mullah's. It might actually open up your eyes the severity of threat to OUR freedom of religion and OUR freedom of democracy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

It might actually open up your eyes the severity of threat to OUR freedom of religion and OUR freedom of democracy.

I have read some of Bin Laden's statements, I have read Saddam's open letters to the People Of The United States, and I have read Imperial Hubris. They all say the same thing. Freedom and Democracy are NOT under attack in the US. Bin Laden himself said (in one of his letters to the people of the US) "use your democracy to change your leadership and end oppression in the middle east and Africa."

It has nothing to do with what freedoms exist in North America. Go out and read Imperial Hubris, for the author (as a CIA Middle East specialist) not only identifies what the real issues are, he also offers solutions that may yet avert further attacks. He is pro-american, but he can call a spade a spade from his immense experience.

[August1991]

Let's draw some parallels, here shall we? The independence fight for Chechnya against the Russians vs. the independance fight of the US against the British.

All I detect in your post, Thelonious, is the desire to treat the US as the big, powerful bad guy.

Thelonious, your morality is the same found in Westerns: black hat and white hat. The big and powerful are bad. The small and weak are the underdogs and so good.

Your post is a wonderfgul demonstration: The British were powerful and Americans weak, hence the Americans were the underdogs. But then the Americans were powerful and the American Indians weak, hence the Indians were the underdogs.

Your morality is as simple as "Might is wrong."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Your morality is as simple as "Might is wrong."

Very close. I believe the use of might is wrong. However, I will grant that it could possibly be used as a 'last resort'.

While you may try to simplify my comparison into that which you wish to see, I think there are lessons to be learned from them and if those lessons aren't learned, we're all f*#ked.

Colonialism and inperialism are just another form of totalitarianism, both the British Empire and The USA today are guilty of thinking that it is their 'right' to bring their ways of life to those who don't want it.

August1991, you had called democracy 'bad'. You claim totalitarianism is 'bad'. That leaves anarchy as the only plausible substitute. Bad.

I would be more than happy to throw my support behind the USA if they actually stood for the things they claim. Instead, I bash them when I can, for I hate liars and hypocrites. (not all the people of the US of course, just the ones in charge of foriegn policy, who claim to be 'spreading the goodness, while killing other people and raping their land)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber and August 1991,

Quite simply, Osama (and those that follow him) are acting in what they believe to be 'self-defence'. Many seem to believe 9/11 to be an act of 'aggression', directed at stopping 'freedom and democracy' in the USA. It is important that you understand that this is not the case. You'll never win if you support that rubbish.

Unfortunately, even in North America, if you defend yourself against a would-be robber (by punching his lights out, say) you could be charged for your 'aggressive' act. Is self-defence a form of aggression? Can Terrorism be considered a legitimate form of self-defence? Is 'self-defence', as Osama claims, the case here? Can the notion of 'self-defence' be used by a country or a religion?

[takeanumber]

Quite simply, Osama (and those that follow him) are acting in what they believe to be 'self-defence'. Many seem to believe 9/11 to be an act of 'aggression', directed at stopping 'freedom and democracy' in the USA. It is important that you understand that this is not the case. You'll never win if you support that rubbish.

Are you serious?

Alright, let's go over the colonialist and imperialist charges.

First and foremost, the USA and Britain stopped being both as of the 1960's.

If you still believe that the USA and Britain are imperialists, you're a marxist, and I really don't have much to say to you. You're simply wrong.

-------------------------------

The charge of self-defense.

Classic.

The Japanese used similar logic during the rape of nanjing and let's not forget, pearl harbour.

Justifying 9-11 by saying that it was self-defense is exactly what French Socialists said to themselves when Hitler tore up the treaty of Versaille, and later took the Sudatenland.

Self-defense?

Hardly.

I suppose the Beirut bombings are self-defense too?

I can't put this in any clearer terms.

The Islamists want us to convert or die.

Does foreign policy factor?

Yes. The only reason why it does is because we exist.

It's that clear. It's that obvious.

You need to make the decision to open up your eyes to the terrible situation and admit that we gotta fight to keep our freedoms.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

The Islamists want us to convert or die.

Does foreign policy factor?

Yes. The only reason why it does is because we exist.

Conversion? While it is true that Osama offered it to the people of the US, and volunteered to be thier teacher, he did not do so because he aims to 'convert the west'. He did so because the Koran states that it is wrong to kill your enemy without first giving them a chance to convert.

As to the foreign policy bit, I can only assume that, for whatever reason, you have no knowledge of what and whom the US supports to enrich itself.

For example, a Calgary based company, Talisman, recently sold off it's drilling operations in a certain African country. Why? Public ostracism. It was evident that the profits it made and paid to the local gov't were being used to kill and oppress the local populace to enable the extraction of oil. The US has no such qualms, and regularly supports brutal dictatorships to help it achieve it's goals.

As to the question 'Am I serious?', I am not saying Osama is acting in self defence. I am saying he believes it, and a growing number of Muslims do too. You don't have to agree that self-defence is the case, but you should know the motivations of your 'enemy', and not misconstrue their actions to fit you beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster. Read 'Imperial Hubris' by 'Anonymous', it is the clearest account of what is happening. The alternative title is "Why the west is losing the war on terror'.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured.

WTF?

TS, it is that kind of moral reasoning that I find objectionable and apparently, you are oblivious.

"If I had just given my car to the thief, he never would have had to steal it from me."

Sigh.

What you and others on the right seem to insist on being oblivious to is that I am not engaged in "moral reasoning" up to this point.

I said 'value judgments come later', didn't I?

To all you Righistas, I beg of you ... stop pretending that 'explanation' means the same thing as 'justification'.

It is correct that if you gave your car to the theif, he wouldn't steal it. Simply, factually correct, the same way it is simply factually correct that if Russia had freed Chechnya the school almost certainly would not have been attacked.

NOW, with these facts on the table, we can proceed to make a 'moral' assessment of whether it was 'right' to keep Chechnya through military power or 'right' to kill innocent children in a bid to obtain its freedom.

[Black Dog]

Radical muslims do NOT have the right to impose their version of their religion on other muslims. That includes Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.

Radical muslims, moreover, do NOT have the right to impose their version of their religion on the Western World, which they are seeking to do through blunt force.

Their object is clear, just as it is with any other totalitirian regime.

Blah blah blah etc.

Sorry, but what does all this blather about "Radical Islamist totalitarianism" have to do with Beslan? What does Chechnya's fight for independence have to do with some global "clash of civilizations"?

You've swallowed the propaganda whole.

(Still no evidence of "foreign fighters" involvement in the school tragedy, by the way.)

You can try to say "oh, but what about Chechnya' all you want.

You're still, in my view, rationalizing it.

What has gone on in Chechnya is terrible. But you know, did I get any support from you, or anybody else on the Left, twelve years ago when I warned of the war?

Nope.

After all, came the refrain, "we have to respect the Russian culture".

So these tears from the Left regarding the poor Chechens are that of crocodiles.

The left didn't give a rats ass about Chechnya until it was convinient for them to use it as a ploy against Putin.

And yes, that's pretty damn sick of you.

So this is about your sour grapes?

Based on your comments, I have a hard time believing you ever advocated for the Checyhan cause.

Furthermore, I find it even more difficult to believe that anyone on the left supported Putin's war.

So, sorry, but your plea to authority dosn't work.

I remind you that nobody here, on the Left gave a damn about Chechnya last month. Nobody here supported a secularized seperate state for them.

You didn't care.

It's disgustingly opportunistic of you to rationalize the horror just because you have a bone to pick with Putin.

Given the work of humanitarian and human rights organizations like Amnesty to bring the atrocities in Chechnya to light, your accussations of opportunism are false and do these individuals a great disservice.

Give us some evidence of your claims (first, that you, personally and alone, advocated for the Chechyan cause, and second, that the Chechyan cause had been rejected by the left until last week.)

The acts of violence against children is horrific, in spite of attempts to diminish the scale of the terror by trying to rationalize and 'understand the motivation'.

Nice to see all the imminently logical statements to the contrary have whizzed right over your head.

1) The English-speaking/North American Left has a simplistic morality: defend the perceived "underdog" regardless. (At the moment, the Chechens are the perceived "underdog".)

Again, I must point out it is the left that is morally consistent: war, terror is wrong whether perpetrated by russia on chechnya, or by atrmed gunmen against schoolkids; by suicide bomber on a bus, or by Apache helicopter gunship.

Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured. 

WTF?

TS, it is that kind of moral reasoning that I find objectionable and apparently, you are oblivious.

"If I had just given my car to the thief, he never would have had to steal it from me."

What are your objections to an idependent Chechnya?

see...so when I suppose the Nazi's were only attacking French foreign policy then?

lol.

Get your head out of the sand! Islamists won't stop until we're all converted or all dead.

Who is this bogeyman you are invoking? What power does it have? What conditions exist that allow radical ideaologies to prosper and becoem bona fide movements? Is "Islamism" monolithic, or are their differing interpretations?

Oh sorry: I forgot that asking questions is "diminishing terror".

If you still believe that the USA and Britain are imperialists, you're a marxist, and I really don't have much to say to you. You're simply wrong.

WTF?

Most telling of all, is the leftyist propensity (on this thread) to analysise the situation, discuss causes and asks questions. What do we get from the other side? Slogans: "we gotta fight to keep our freedoms". Inaappropriate and irrelevant historical parallels.

No depth. No intellectual vigour. Just empty rhetoric.Yawn.

[Guest eureka]

Just to address an off topic assertion for te moment. I have seen a few references to French Socialists and their tacit support of the Nazis.

My understanding of history is that it was the Right that formed the Vichy and collaborated with the Germans. It was the Left that formed the residitance. As far as those designations can be applied, of course.

Or was Camus a closet capitalist?