Russian: Yet another victim of terrorism

[takeanumber]

LoL TS.

I don't think the Wahabist's are going to be happy when they face God and hear the answer.

Oh well.

Black Dog: You justify their actions. You emphasize political economy, placing blame squarely on the victims. The reason why you can only respond with insults is because you don't have any facts left to defend yourself.

You painted yourself into a corner with the Islamists.

Enjoy your newfound company, you deserv'em.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

You justify their actions. You emphasize political economy, placing blame squarely on the victims.

Black Dog did no such thing. 'Understanding' is a different animal than 'justifying'. As to placing the blame on the victims,, well, the Iraqi people ( along with millions of others throughout the world) are victims. How about we say, 'Lets declare war on oppression', then we could include the USA with Islamic extremists as oppressors.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

You justify their actions. You emphasize political economy, placing blame squarely on the victims.

Further to this,

I'll liken Bush to a drunk driver. (Funnily enough, he was one). Responsibility for one's actions has given rise to the charge of 'vehicular manslaughter' when a drunk driver causes the death of a passenger in their car.

Mr. Bush is swerving through history, in the gas-guzzling SUV we'll call 'America'. Drunk on power, Mr. Bush (and many 'at the wheel' before him, especially his father) careens wildly from country to country, stopping only to refuel. When confronted with a price at the pumps in Iraq he doesn't like, he simply pulls out his long-barreled .44 and says," America' is thirsty. Mr Smith &Mr.Wesson will decide the price". Now, with a 'foriegn policy' like that, sometimes shots are taken at 'America' as it drives by. It is, more often than not, the passenger who is the victim, but who is to blame? Mr. Bush should have his license taken away this November.

[takeanumber]

Patently oversimplistic.

I may hate Bush, but I certainly won't go so far as think that the war in Iraq was completely over Oil.

There's no oil in Afghanistan.

Counterexample shown.

I wouldn't call what BD is trying to do as 'understanding'.

All BD wants to do is make charges to support the world the way he sees it.

He's deliberately sought to show that Putin, and Slavic Russians in general, are responsible for the gunning down of children.

French Socialists deliberately sought to show that their own leader was in on the so-called 'Jewish Conspiracy'.

I have rightly argued that radical Islamism is out to destroy the Western World, because the only thing they can produce, as proven by the Afghan experience, is misery and death.

[August1991]

When confronted with a price at the pumps in Iraq he doesn't like, he simply pulls out his long-barreled .44 and says," America' is thirsty. Mr Smith &Mr.Wesson will decide the price".

Unless I'm missing something in your analogy, Americans paid (and still pay) world market prices for Iraqi oil.

In any case, the US relies primarily on Canada for its foreign oil. Japan and Europe rely on the Middle East for their oil.

But was oil the point of your analogy?

[kimmy]

One could argue that in some cases, terrorism comes in response to aggression or imperialism. But what about the hostage-takers demanding that the French law against head-scarves be overturned?

In this thread we called the Arabs rumoured to have participated in the Beslan massacre "mercenaries" and "volunteers". "Mercenaries" was also used to describe the many foreigners that supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Mercenaries" and "volunteers" are of course ridiculous euphemisms. Mercenary suggests someone motivated by money. And "volunteer" suggests, well, helpfulness... but if you really believe the "volunteers" primary motivation was Chechen independance or "law, order, and good government" in Afghanistan, you're probably gullible enough to believe that Dubya's primary motivation is the well-being of the Iraqi man on the street.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Islam does not have a political structure. It is, in that sense, much like medieval Christianity. The dictates and dictats come from Mullahs not elected politicians.

That thought comes from the book, :Political and Social Thought in the Contemporary Middle East." It is not from this poor disciple who has not studies the Koran. I prefer to weigh the opinions of experts.

Islam has no ideal that preaches terrorism. Indeed it has been a far more peaceful religion that Christianity since its early messianic days. We, in the West, are reviving that religious based violence, through our policies and our misunderstanding of Islam. It is those who are preaching the danger of Islam who are the danger. They are slowly uniting the radical elements of Islam into a movement of fanatics.

Islam is many things with almost as many schisms as Christianity. To lump them together and call them a "death cult" or a "terrorist" threat is to crate what we fear.

Al Quada is not Islam: the Wahhabis are not Islam.. They have their counterparts in Christianity.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

Islam does not have a political structure. It is, in that sense, much like medieval Christianity. The dictates and dictats come from Mullahs not elected politicians

Islam has it's own 'political structure' built right in to the Koran, so you can't really say they don't have one.

  Islam has no ideal that preaches terrorism

You are correct, 'terrorism' is just the name the western media prefers, and while the name can be correctly applied to certain given methods of warfare, many Muslims believe they are fighting a 'defensive war', or Jihad.

It is those who are preaching the danger of Islam who are the danger. They are slowly uniting the radical elements of Islam into a movement of fanatics.

Very true. Osama claimed that there are many actions that the US, Russia and China are doing that proves they are 'attacking Islam and Muslims in their home countries' and by your argument these people are only stoking the fire. I agree, but how to stop the Islamists from finding more 'proof'?

I think the biggest fallacy of the West at this point is to argue the mistaken belief that 'Islamists' want to invade and conquer, then convert or kill, the Western World. Mostly, they are trying to say to the West, "F#%k off, and leave us alone".

[Black Dog]

Black Dog: You justify their actions. You emphasize political economy, placing blame squarely on the victims. The reason why you can only respond with insults is because you don't have any facts left to defend yourself.

You painted yourself into a corner with the Islamists.

Enjoy your newfound company, you deserv'em

Thick as ever, eh? By your logic, then, you stand next to the "with us/against us" crowd. You claim to hate Bush, yet share his narrow worldview. You will brook no dissent from your orthodoxy.

I've asked you questions and raised points which you have ignored. Your position is untenable and your refusal to engage in any actual discussion on the matter makes that fact all the more apparent. It's clear you have no interest in discourse, only sloganeering.

Patently oversimplistic.

I may hate Bush, but I certainly won't go so far as think that the war in Iraq was completely over Oil.

There's no oil in Afghanistan.

Counterexample shown.

There is an abundance of natural gas. There's also the matter of strategic proximity to other oil-rich central Asian republics. Oil and control of the oil supply is not the primary reason, but it is a key factor.

I wouldn't call what BD is trying to do as 'understanding'.

All BD wants to do is make charges to support the world the way he sees it.

He's deliberately sought to show that Putin, and Slavic Russians in general, are responsible for the gunning down of children.

Spurious nonsense. Your feeble attempts at race baiting is made all the more moronic by the fact that I am of Slavic descent. I guess the simple notion of cause and effect (as articulated in plain languiage by one of the hostage takers in Beslan: "You killed our children, so we've come to kill yours.") is to much for you to handle.

[Fox_]

When “legitimate representatives of the Chechen people” sensed that they were losing the very ground under their feet, they changed their songs. And now Zakaev (pointedly distancing from Maskhadov) speaks in capacity of ChRI government, “assaulting Basaev’s aggressive intentions aimed at continuation of terrorist acts against Russian civil population”. Chechen government in the name of its new-born leader “absolutely rejects position of Basaev’s supporters and strongly condemns murders of innocent people”. Then Zakaev hypocritically declares that “he (just think of it!) is sorry about civil losses that were taken place in combat operations and he takes all due measures in order to minimize them”. And I wonder just what it means. That is the ravings of a madman, not the government’s leader! What do you say about “diversions against concrete legitimate targets”? It’s just nonsense! It’s far better than Basaev’s naïve aspirations for forcing Putin to final settlement of Chechen problems through terrorism”, isn’t it? In other words, Zakaev is forcing us, naïve simpletons, to believe in the rightness of his cause to peace through “cooperation with the part of Russian society which fully rejects Kremlin’s policy”. And the forthcoming meeting between representatives of ChRI leadership and Russian delegation of soldier’s mothers is quoted as an example of such cooperation. But in the name of whom is Zakaev speaking in his statements, I wonder? It seems that he doesn’t consider it necessary to even mention the name of his boss Maschadov. Why?

[CdnRepublican]

Russia will never win this war in Chechnya. It has been fighting there since the days of Catherine the Great - nothing has changed. Now it is a magnet for terror. This gives Putin the perfect excuse to prolong the war - but Russia is doing a poor job of it - apparently even 1000s of Russian civilisans in Grozny and elsewhere have been killed.

Chechnya is Islamic not Orthodox. It has never acceded to Russian overlordship. In return for a cessation of terror, the Russians should grant Chechnya autonomy, pull out, secure the border regions and work with a legitimate Chechnyan government to eradicate terror inside the autonomous Chechnyan state.

This is the only viable option. Russia is spilling, blood, money and political capital in hopeless enterprise, conducted by young untrained Russians and a decrepit military. Thousands of young men are dead in Chechnya.

But you hear not a word about this in the Western Liberal media - why ???

[kimmy]

Aslan Maskhadov is now dead. Maskhadov was the leader of the Chechen separatists; he has been killed in a raid by Russian security forces.

Maskhadov had been believed by some to be a moderating influence. His death might leave Shamil Basayev, an Al-Qaeda-connected Wahhabi who was the planner of the Belsan school massacre, with more influence in Chechnya's separatist movement.

-kimmy

[moderateamericain]

great topc all, my personal feeling on the matter is regardless of "who started it" the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. if the chechnyans want independence fine, go out and kill RUSSIAN MILITARY TARGETS. you dont go kill a school full of children. now im not saying that the russians are any better or worse. a simple break down would be two kids on a play ground get into a shoving match and then a fist fight, does the school care who started it first, no, they both get into trouble. THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS is the worst train of thought ever invented. and its prolly been the cause of more atrocity then anything else..