Russia's response to Chechnya

[powerclown]

Very interesting article, on many levels, in today's NYTimes. Notwithstanding my criticism of how they handled the school siege, it is encouraging to me to read Putin's resolute stance on islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the Russian attacks. How would you gauge Putin's reaction now that this situation has materialised in Russia?

Putin Says Russia Faces Full 'War' to Divide Nation
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: September 5, 2004


OSCOW, Sept. 4 - In a rare address to his nation, coming at a time of grave crisis, President Vladimir V. Putin said Saturday that the school siege in the southern city of Beslan was an attack on all of Russia and called for the mobilization of society to resist what he called "a total and full-scale war" to splinter the country.

Mr. Putin spoke as the death toll from the violent end of the hostage crisis at Middle School No. 1 in Beslan rose to 330; half of the dead were children. Officials warned that the number of dead would rise further in the city, not far from Chechnya, as workers searched the school's charred wreckage and as more victims succumbed to their wounds in hospitals.

"This is challenge to all of Russia, to all our people," Mr. Putin said. "This is an attack against all of us."

[Russian Deputy Prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky said Sunday that according to the latest information, 32 terrorists had been involved in the hostage-taking, and the bodies of 30 of them had been found, the Interfax news agency said, as reported by the Associated Press. Including the militants, at least 380 people died, according to the A.P.]


Mr. Putin sought to answer the seething anger that many here have expressed after a series of terrorist acts that in 10 wrenching days have killed more than 500 people. The worst was in Beslan, where heavily armed insurgents, some wearing explosives, seized the school on Wednesday, corralled 1,200 schoolchildren, parents and teachers into its gymnasium and threatened to kill them. On Friday, large explosions caused a panic and Russian troops charged the building as children began to escape, but hundreds died in the melee.

Authorities said they believed that the terrorists were Islamic militants, mostly Chechens.

Mr. Putin called the siege "a horrible tragedy." Then, speaking of the sweep of Russia's post-Soviet history, he criticized corruption in the judiciary, the inefficiency of law enforcement and the difficult transition to capitalism that he acknowledged had left few resources to secure Russia's borders in a changing and dangerous epoch.

For Mr. Putin, who projects the image of unswerving leadership, it was a striking acknowledgment that not all was well under his watch.

"We have to admit that we failed to recognize the complexity and danger of the processes going on in our country and the world as a whole," said Mr. Putin, who spoke for 10 minutes, standing alone in front of Russia's flag and a wood-paneled backdrop. "At any rate, we failed to react to them adequately. We demonstrated our weakness, and the weak are beaten."

Mr. Putin did not accept personal responsibility for Russia's failings, but he echoed a feeling of helplessness and fear that has shaken the country, demanding, as many here have, that security and law-enforcement agencies work more efficiently to counter the threat of terrorism. He also suggested that Russian society itself needed to develop to succeed in the fight.

"Events in other countries prove that terrorists meet the most effective rebuff where they confront not only the power of the state, but also an organized and united civil society," he said.

He did not elaborate, but many Russians have been citing the experiences of the United States, Israel and Spain as more effective in protecting their citizens. A policeman, guarding Chekhov's former estate in the town of Melikhovo, on Saturday contrasted Russia's helplessness to the resolve of the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Our government is to blame," said the officer, who would only give his first name, Valery. "They do not take care of their citizens. In the U.S., after Sept. 11, there were not any more attacks. Here they have not done anything. We get kicked from all sides."

Mr. Putin appeared determined to show that the government would and could act. He said he would soon propose measures to strengthen the nation's unity, to coordinate the political and security structures of Russia's Caucasian republics, and to create a new emergency-management system. The failures of the existing system were painfully obvious in the government's confused and contradictory responses after the bombings of two passenger airliners on Aug. 24 and during the siege in Beslan, in the southern republic of North Ossetia.

Although he made a broad appeal for national unity in the face of terror, he did not mention the war in Chechnya, a struggle linked to all of the attacks that have roiled the country. That suggested he would not consider changing the Kremlin's strategy there, despite years of war and atrocities that have left the Chechen people embittered.

Mr. Putin did not apologize or express remorse for the mounting terror toll, for which critics have placed blame in part on the Kremlin's harsh repressions in Chechnya, but he addressed "those who lost the dearest in their life, their children."

In Beslan, the physical and psychological toll of the siege and its deadly end on Friday continued to mount. At the city's House of Culture, which had turned into a makeshift crisis center, the authorities compiled a list of 205 hostages who remained unaccounted for. Workers and investigators searched the school's wreckage for bodies and evidence; by midday they had discovered 237 bodies.

More than 700 people were wounded, and more than 400 remained in the hospital on Saturday night, 58 of them gravely wounded children, according to Lev Dzugayev, a spokesman for North Ossetia's president. At least seven children died of their wounds on Saturday.

A day after the siege ended with two last blasts and hours of firefights, new details emerged of the attack, which involved more than 30 heavily armed fighters, including Chechens, Ingush, Ossetians and, officials said, some foreigners.

Sergei N. Fridinsky, Russia's deputy prosecutor general for the region, said in remarks reported by news agencies that 10 of 26 fighters killed in the siege's violent climax were foreigners, but neither he nor other officials provided any details or evidence of their origin.

A government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said three of the fighters had been arrested after the chaos on Friday and were being questioned.

Maj. Gen. Valery A. Andreyev, director of North Ossetia's branch of the Federal Security Service, said Saturday that preparations for the hostage-taking might have begun in the summer, saying the fighters may have infiltrated the school and smuggled in explosives and weapons during a renovation.

Before dawn on Saturday, Mr. Putin flew briefly to Beslan, where he visited a hospital and vowed to relentlessly pursue not only those involved in the siege but also any others who would "foment interethnic hatred" across the volatile republics of the northern Caucasus.

Mr. Putin, facing both sympathy and criticism at home and abroad, returned to the Kremlin and, in his address, to the theme of ethnic conflicts and divisions that, he said, terrorists sought to exploit.

"Terrorists think that they are stronger, that they can intimidate us, paralyze our will, decompose our society," Mr. Putin said Saturday night. "It seems that we have a choice: to resist or to cave in and agree with their claims, to give up and allow them to destroy and to take apart Russia, in the hope that eventually they will leave us alone."

Noting his oath of office to protect the nation, he added, "I am convinced that in fact there is no choice."

source

[ARTelevision]

It's a chilling event. His response is on the mark. Folks will be reminding us, I'm sure, of Russia's brutal treatment of the Chechen Resistance. Duly noted in advance.

Radical Muslim fundamentalism strikes again. Putin is our ally against it. He always was. It's just a bit more clear now why that is the case.

[Sun Tzu]

I dont know enough about the history to gauge the fighting between the 2 entities. One thing is certain its completely wrong to target innocents; especially children. This scenerio would be tough for any leader to deal with. I cant see thats it helped the terrorists cause any either.

[james t kirk]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

It's a chilling event. His response is on the mark. Folks will be reminding us, I'm sure, of Russia's brutal treatment of the Chechen Resistance. Duly noted in advance.

Radical Muslim fundamentalism strikes again. Putin is our ally against it. He always was. It's just a bit more clear now why that is the case.

I hate to say it, but you are correct.

Radical Muslims will never change. They are born and bread now to hate anything western, to destroy freedom, and to kill all infidels (us). There is no way to convince them otherwise.

I am a very live and let live individual. If you don't hurt anyone, I don't care what you believe, or how you want to live your life.

But when you start flying planes into buildings, or blowing up subways, or apartment buildings, or theatres, and now, killing hundreds of 5 and 6 year olds in the name of your fucked up religion of hatred, you have crossed the line.

If Mr. radical Ismalist want to get tough - then get tough with the US military, or the Russian Military. Never mind a bunch of 5 year old kids on the first day of school. Get tough with the Bear or Uncle Sam, but they won't because they are the worst form of cowards this planet has ever seen.

Putin will respond to this in a big way. Russia is demanding it, the world will turn the other way. And I will not blame him for what he does because the radicals have forced his hand.

I hate to say it, but this is starting to look more and more like a religous war. It's heating up, not cooling down. You have the US, Britain, and Russia being attacked by radicals from outside. Guess they didn't watch those films in history class what happened the last time the US, Britain, and Russia teamed up.

[roachboy]

Radical Muslims will never change. They are born and bread now to hate anything western, to destroy freedom, and to kill all infidels (us). There is no way to convince them otherwise.

the above is racist bullshit.
indefensible.

on the outcome of the fiasco:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3628432.stm

this kind of thinking resulted in a fine fine outcome.

seems to me that in order to rationalize a fuckup of this magnitude, putin needs a really big enemy, preferably of the type that bush has used to prop up his administration. worked in the states, maybe it will work for putin too. that way, you dont have to talk about things like the russian brutalisation of chechnya or think too much about how carnage on this scale gets connected back to actions of the state that is forced to fashion a "response"---better that the state itself be spun as a victim.

really foul stuff, exploiting for political advantage a really tragic situation.

[Strange Famous]

I think Russia is ready to go back to communism, or the state capitalist version of it they previously had anyway. More and more I get the sense that Russians are nostalgic for the past.

[james t kirk]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the above is racist bullshit.

What would you suggest?

The events of the last 3 years have demonstrated that radical islamists are intent on killing as many people who do not subscribe to their line of thinking as possible.

If given the opportunity, they would gladly parade you before their video cameras and chop your head right off.

You will never change their minds on this. I am not saying that all muslims are like this, but the radical fundamentalist muslims are, and I don't see ANY way of changing their minds whatsoever ever.

You may not like it, but there is no way to rationalize with them, so the only other solution is to kill them before they kill you. Unless of course you don't mind them killing you, in which case, that's your choice and I respect your decision.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I think Russia is ready to go back to communism, or the state capitalist version of it they previously had anyway. More and more I get the sense that Russians are nostalgic for the past.

I know you won't get the ponit, but very few people go back to slavery willingly SF.

[roachboy]

i would suggest that you not let yourself accept this kind of racist pseduo-explanation, this cartoon characterization of an enemy.
nothing about it allows you to understand anything.

[brianna]

I think it's important to remember that while the chechen militants have committed acts of terror any connection between them and al queda is dubious at best (i'm sure al queda would be perfectly willing to give them money -- this does not make them part of the organization, it makes them poor desperate people who will take any support they can get). the chechens want to be an independent state, i suspect that if russia granted their independence (as they have done with numerous other eastern bloc countries, i fail to see why the're holding out on this except out of sheer stubbornness) that the terrorism would cease. one might call this "negotiating with terrorists" or you could call it "negotiating with the non terrorist nonmilitant regular joes in chechnya." (of which there are thousands, i would guess many manymore then their are militant fighters)

i think it's pretty hard to choose a side here -- the russians have brutally murdered thousands of chechens, now the chechens are brutally murdering thousands of russians. I don't see how perpetuating this cycle (we attack you, you attack us, some of our people die, some of your people die) is likely to result in anything other then europe's own personal palestine. Maybe it's time for a more diplomatic solution.

[Strange Famous]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I know you won't get the ponit, but very few people go back to slavery willingly SF.

Under Breshnev things were not so bad as to be called slavery. True, there was political oppression, and the media was not free... but people had jobs, and food, and adequate medical care... Russia had an international standing, the Mafiya was kept in check... Khruschev once said "what is the point of communism if the people cannot have sausage" and "You can't put Marxist theory in your soup"... the social liberalisation that capitalism has brought has in effect made the Mafiya the de facto rulers of many area's, concentrated the wealth of the country in even fewer and even more corrupt hands, Russians feel frequently humiliated by Russia's reduced international standing, hunger is widespread, joblessness and homelessness is rife, people cannot get medical care anymore - so, what use is a free media, an some degree of greater equality of opportunity when you have nothing to eat and your child cant get medical treatment?

Under the dictatorship of the party, people knew where they stood, basic needs were met, and while society was culturally opressed and stifling, the rule of law was upheld, people had jobs, the talented could still rise up the party structure... now only a very few enjoy wealth, while foriegn speculators and the Maffiya enjoy Russia's great natural wealth. Communism offered safety, a sense of national unity and pride, a greater equality... people in Russia were not slaves, or even serfs - they did not have full freedom, but they had security and food and shelter. How is a starving man free - what does the freedom mean if there is not enough to eat?

The market has not made life better for ordinary Russians, they have suffered hugely at the unfettered violence of the invisible hands - if the democratic control of the market is still impossible, then at least the state control of it can ensure the basic needs of the people are met, Russia could once again become a genuine player in world politics, the people could know security and safety.

I honestly believe the majority of Russians feel things are worse for them now than before the capitalist revolution.

[Strange Famous]

Originally Posted by brianna

I think it's important to remember that while the chechen militants have committed acts of terror any connection between them and al queda is dubious at best (i'm sure al queda would be perfectly willing to give them money -- this does not make them part of the organization, it makes them poor desperate people who will take any support they can get). the chechens want to be an independent state, i suspect that if russia granted their independence (as they have done with numerous other eastern bloc countries, i fail to see why the're holding out on this except out of sheer stubbornness) that the terrorism would cease. one might call this "negotiating with terrorists" or you could call it "negotiating with the non terrorist nonmilitant regular joes in chechnya." (of which there are thousands, i would guess many manymore then their are militant fighters)

i think it's pretty hard to choose a side here -- the russians have brutally murdered thousands of chechens, now the chechens are brutally murdering thousands of russians. I don't see how perpetuating this cycle (we attack you, you attack us, some of our people die, some of your people die) is likely to result in anything other then europe's own personal palestine. Maybe it's time for a more diplomatic solution.

I would just like to add to what you have said that every poll of the Chechen people, from every source, has showed that at least 70% of the Chechen people want to be a federal republic of Russia, and not an independent state. The terrorists want a seperate Chechyna, the Chechen people do not.

And yes, Chechen civilians have been killed by the Russians, in a lot of sense this is Russia's Vietnam... but it isnt as simple as granting Chechnya indepence, Chechnya does not want it.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

RB, what are you smoking? JTK never made any racist remarks, he was very clear in his post, labeling them for what they are RADICAL muslims.

This war in Checnya has been becoming more and more of an Arab/Islamic Nationalist cause much like Afganistan, this is clear when you see at least 10 of the perps from the school are Middle Eastern Muslim Arab's.

Killing children, and blowing up planes, bombing subway stations, blowing up apartment buildings... hmm is there a trend here? Oh they are all civilian targets, which equates terrorism. The fact that the last attack was children only goes to show that these radical chechen/Arab muslims are sociopaths and a cancer on this planet. I can only pray that Putin wipes them and there fold from the face of the earth.

[roachboy]

not interested in cotinuing on this track--it wont get anywhere, thing will only deteriorate, so i'm checking out of the attempt to persuade right folk that their charcterization is racist when it comes to "fundamentalists"---i have said what there is to say, for me at least. you, mojo, can retain your fantasies of ethnic cleansing, and i will retain my understanding that what lets you have these fantasies is racism.

the other elements of the argument are more germaine in any event. why putin would revert to the "war on terror" to justify fiasco.

[ARTelevision]

roachboy, I do think such a conception as radical Muslim fundamentalism has some value in terms of addressing particular historical and contemporary situations. It's not simply a "racist" term in itself.

Saudi Wahhabism and its promulgation beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia is well documented. It can be addressed as a clear aspect of radical Muslim fundamentalism as it is being experienced today. Wouldn't you agree?

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

This war in Checnya has been becoming more and more of an Arab/Islamic Nationalist cause much like Afganistan

Thats true, but why do you think this is happening?
Is it because the muslim have a "natural" tendency to become "radical" and violent? or is it because the russian goverment killed thousands of civilians in the last couple of years? What makes you think that just killing more people can solve the problems?

As for freedom:
Check how "free" the last chechen elections were. Ruassia has killed "freedom" long time ago.

[roachboy]

it is not the conception as such, art--it is the way it gets knit into other kinds of thinking. i did not react to jtk's post as i did because he used the category--it was how he used, it--just read the quote--i would hope that it is obvious why i reacted as it did.
the turn to "fundamentalism" is diverse and complex, driven mostly by local sitautions an the possiblities/spaces for dissent they leave open. the best example is iran--the main reason the revolution assumed the character that it did was because savak did not extend its surveillance to the mosques. there is nothing related at any level to a notion of "essence" in it...you could read these movements in parallel ways in each of the places from which they have come, and that is fine--but once you step over the line into imputing essences to whole groups of people (they will never change, balh balh blah) you not only eliminate any analytic use the category might have, but you prevent yourself from understanding anything--so.

[ARTelevision]

so...on to a better understanding of what exactly "radical Muslim fundamentalism" means to us today.

I'd suggest anyone interested in engaging this difficult subject do some preliminary searches on "Wahhabism" and take the research from there. And of course, each national and trans-national movement must be seen in context. There are, in fact, " reasons" and "justifications" that rational people use to defend irrational action.

It's incumbent upon us to understand what exactly is going on. Ultimately, I think it poses an unprecendented threat to what is called "the civilized world" because it has an avowedly apocalyptic focus.

[Seaver]

I dont see anything racist in his comments. Overly-simple and shortsighted maybe, but nothing racist.

They are born and bread now to hate anything western, to destroy freedom, and to kill all infidels (us). There is no way to convince them otherwise.

This is true about the muslim terrorists. No amout of debating will convince them to change. Much of the Muslim world (all the way to Indonesia) dont even think that there ARE Muslim terrorists. Read Kuri, he went over there and the muslim children in MODERATE schools were taught that it was the Jews who drove the planes into the towers. So how do you try to convince them that their own brothers and sisters are the sadistic ones who are killing babies and young children?

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Thats true, but why do you think this is happening?
Is it because the muslim have a "natural" tendency to become "radical" and violent? or is it because the russian goverment killed thousands of civilians in the last couple of years?

Fair enough question. Most chechens are against the idea of a separate chechnya. So there is a power struggle in chechnya, between rebel separatists and moscow. At this point you can also question the relevance of introducing radical islam into the equation. The fact remains chechnya is ~250 miles north of iraq & iran; so while the theory of a religious war can be argued pro/con, it certainly is not out of the question.

[Dragonlich]

Originally Posted by Seaver

This is true about the muslim terrorists. No amout of debating will convince them to change. Much of the Muslim world (all the way to Indonesia) dont even think that there ARE Muslim terrorists. Read Kuri, he went over there and the muslim children in MODERATE schools were taught that it was the Jews who drove the planes into the towers. So how do you try to convince them that their own brothers and sisters are the sadistic ones who are killing babies and young children?

Furthermore, Muslims tend to view terrorists as not being Muslim by their actions. Hence, Islam isn't to blame, the terrorists are. Of course, they have a point, but it's too easy to ignore the reality; extremist Islam *is* responsible for people doing nasty things, and just labeling them as "not Muslim" isn't going to change that.

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by powerclown

Fair enough question. Most chechens are against the idea of a separate chechnya.

I've heard of that survey, do you know who did it? Russia?

But the question if the chechens want a seperate nation or not. the question is what caused the radicalization of htat conflict.
I think that a major reason is the brutal millitary invention by the russians. Therefore I doubt that more brutal millitary actions will solve anything.
This is the direct way to barbarism, on both sides!

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Folks will be reminding us, I'm sure, of Russia's brutal treatment of the Chechen Resistance. Duly noted in advance.

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

so...on to a better understanding of what exactly "radical Muslim fundamentalism" means to us today.

I'd suggest anyone interested in engaging this difficult subject do some preliminary searches on "Wahhabism" and take the research from there. And of course, each national and trans-national movement must be seen in context. There are, in fact, " reasons" and "justifications" that rational people use to defend irrational action.

It's incumbent upon us to understand what exactly is going on. Ultimately, I think it poses an unprecendented threat to what is called "the civilized world" because it has an avowedly apocalyptic focus.

If you want to discuss the spread of Wahhabism/terrorism as it applies to an apocaplypse of the civilized world, why did you effectively brush aside one of the causes of the spread of terrorism in your initial post?

In science, it is recognized that for every effect there is a cause. If you have AIDS, scientists understand that you will probably die from pneumonia. Scientists could focus all of their energy on treating pneumonia, but it is more prudent to focus their energy on understanding AIDS itself and attempting to treat that. AIDS is the root cause, pneumonia is a symptom. Other scientists go even further and attempt to treat social behavior that places someone at risk for contracting AIDS. Scientists understand that dealing with root causes is the only way of dealing with the overall issue because even if you can stop pneumonia, you still have AIDS.

Wahhabism is pneumonia. Almost every single ounce of the civilized world's energy is being focused on Wahhabism. Meanwhile, other viruses, such as Ingush and Chechen terrorists (likely more interested in being left alone as opposed to destroying the whole civilized world) sneak in by using terrorist tactics in the place of Wahhabists.

So we can sit back and research Wahhabism for days and discuss it on here for hours. Someday we might even be able to end Wahhabism. But in the end, the environment which feeds terrorism will still exist throughout the world.

Russia has a very localized issue. Chechen terrorists are not acting for the same reasons as Palestinian terrorists who are not acting for the same reasons as Wahhabist terrorists. Chechen terrorists are acting because of the methods used by Russia to quell a desire for indepedence. Palestinian terrorists technically have a localized issue as well, though it has become global as it has become the focal point of Middle Eastern and Western relations. Wahhabist terrorists have an inherently global issue.

If you're going to focus on Wahhabism, you must deal with the most important question. The question is not "What do Wahhabist want?" - that answer is easy: our destruction. The question is not "Who are Wahhabists?" - that answer is easy: a sect of the Muslim religion. The question is not "How are Wahhabists attempting to achieve what they want?" - that answer is easy: terrorism. The only important question remaining is WHY?

This is the question that no one wants to ask. It is the question that must be asked for any instance of terrorism. It is always dismissed and replaced with shock that the terrorist act took place. It is unimaginable that the terrorist act has taken place. The perpetrators of the act MUST be MAD. They're insane. There is no REASON they could have done this.

That is a completely false perspective. They are indeed mad people. They cannot give you a reason they have commited terrorism that would make any sense (Allah told me to do it!). But there is a reason for their actions. It is a flaw in our analysis of mistaking excuse (terrorists have no excuse) for reason (there is always a reason for any action). Their actions are not random events which come from an isolated bubble of maddness. But this is how we view it. This is how we avoid asking the question WHY.

In the case of Chechens, imagine it is just two people. They're having a verbal disagreement. Person A decides to slap Person B. Person B retaliates by slapping Person A. Person A punches Person B. Person B kicks Person A. Now Person A expresses shock and outrage that Person B would be so mad as to kick! We could dig deeper into root causes as do scientists who work with the social causes of contracting AIDS - Soviet control of the land for decades, the fall of the Soviets and the rise of religious freedom, etc. But a fundamental shift in the disagreement took place when Person A (the Russians) decided to physically attack Person B (the Chechens). That is the WHY - that is the event which changed the Russian-Chechen disagreement into a war of terrorism.

In the case of the Palestinians, it again comes down to a verbal disagreement between two parties (the people that live on the land and the pseudo-world government body who wanted those people to move away) that shifted into a physical disagreement when the new "owners" of the land started taking it.

In the case of Wahhabism the issues run much deeper. Essentially, the issues with the Middle East and the West go back to the time when the West shrugged off the oppression of feudalism. Feudalism had run its course and was holding back technological advancement. This advancement became a strength over the continued feudal society of the Middle East. The West was in a position of power. There was no longer much to fear from the Middle East - they were in a position of subservience to the West now that the military capabilities of the West were vastly superior. Instead of helping the Middle East break free of feudalism, which would help the Middle East advance technologically and increase in power, the West leveraged that feudalism. Once the industrial age hit the West, the ideal method of control of the Middle East emerged. Oil. The West wanted the oil. The feudal lords of the Middle East wanted money to control the serfs. A mutually appealing relationship between the West and the tribal lords of the Middle East was created. Since that time, the West has done everything in its power (which includes military incursions, colonization, coups, and full on wars) to ensure that the leaders of the Middle Eastern lands were as favorable to Western trade as possible - regardless of how those leaders treated the general populace of those lands. The West did not view the people as a concern. As long as there was a leader willing to provide oil, the West would provide money. That the people of the Middle East were living in poverty even as billions of dollars were being pumped into the hands of their leaders was irrelevant to the West. The West viewed itself as not responsible for the oppression of the people by the leaders in the Middle East - even as it provided the resources to the leaders to oppress the people. Occasionally, the suffering of the people in the Middle East would create a rebellion and the West would assist the leaders in quelling it - stability of the leadership was more important to Western need for oil than the oppression of the people. Decades of this went on. One day a Wahhabist (or someone very similar), oppressed by the leaders of the Middle East, displeased with their religious leniency and automatically unfavorable to West, realized that the ideal method of attracting attention (which would lead to followers and the resources necessary for waging a war) to his cause is to threaten innocent people. And it worked perfectly.

So. Why do these issues never get discussed? Why is our focus on stopping the pneumonia of terrorist attacks but not the AIDS of terrorism? I don't know exactly why we either brush aside the root causes ("Duly noted in advance" ... "Good vs. Evil, you're either with us or against us!") but I imagine it has to do with an exhorbitant amount of righteousness. We have convinced ourselves that we can do no wrong in the world, and by virtue, we place our enemies in a bubble. They are not from our world, and yet here they have come to attack us with no cause, no reason. We are pure and they are insane.

Now the question you need to ask yourself is - Are you going to continue to perpetuate this concept of an isolated bubble of maddness which unleashes terrorism on the world, or are you going to focus your energy on dealing with the root causes of terrorism?

[brianna]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I would just like to add to what you have said that every poll of the Chechen people, from every source, has showed that at least 70% of the Chechen people want to be a federal republic of Russia, and not an independent state. The terrorists want a seperate Chechyna, the Chechen people do not.

And yes, Chechen civilians have been killed by the Russians, in a lot of sense this is Russia's Vietnam... but it isnt as simple as granting Chechnya indepence, Chechnya does not want it.

interesting -- i did not know this (link? not that i doubt you, i'd just like to read a bit more) and it certainly complicates the situation. i still think it would probalby help the situation a lot if the chechens were allowed to vote on the issue.

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

In science, it is recognized that for every effect there is a cause.

The study of human behavior, in all its myriad forms of illogic, cannot reliably be labelled a science. Closer to an art, ie., open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

...They are indeed mad people. They cannot give you a reason they have commited terrorism that would make any sense (Allah told me to do it!). But there is a reason for their actions.

If you believe that people should be responsible for themselves and the type of energy they project into the world, you gave an answer (out of many possible) to your own question: because they are mad, and I would agree with you.

In the case of Wahhabism the issues run much deeper....
So. Why do these issues never get discussed?

You portray it as if the issues are secret taboos that are never brought up. The issues are well known to everyone and are being discussed at every level possible, from this board to the highest levels of government worldwide. Putin's response today would be one example of a high-level stance on the problem.

I wouldn't in any way go so far as to say that what just happened in chechnya was decent or right, but as each incident unfolds, the world is getting an ever clearer picture of the nature of this scourge.

Wahhabism is a sell-out to its own people. It marks black the majority, average, moderate, everyday, hard-working, child-raising, decent, peaceful, and productive adherents of the muslim faith. For this reason, like all radical philosophies, it will prove popular to an unruly minority and be the cause of much suffering in the future.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by powerclown

The study of human behavior, in all its myriad forms of illogic, cannot reliably be labelled a science. Closer to an art, ie., open to interpretation.

For every effect, there is a cause. It's a basic principle of the universe. The point I made is that we discuss the issue of terrorism as if it had no cause but only poor excuses.

If you believe that people should be responsible for themselves and the type of energy they project into the world, you gave an answer (out of many possible) to your own question: because they are mad, and I would agree with you.

Their insanity is the excuse we provide instead of addressing the cause of their insanity. The answer is not "they are mad". That only leads to the question - why are they mad?

You portray it as if the issues are secret taboos that are never brought up. The issues are well known to everyone and are being discussed at every level possible, from this board to the highest levels of government worldwide. Putin's response today would be one example of a high-level stance on the problem.

Indeed these secret taboos are almost never brought up. The frame of discussion surrounding terrorism is NEVER one of Why - it is almost exclusively one of How Do We Defeat the Pneumonia. Often to the degree that when someone attempts to address the Why, they are accused of defending terrorism.

Wahhabism is a sell-out to its own people. It marks black the majority, average, moderate, everyday, hard-working, child-raising, decent, peaceful, and productive adherents of the muslim faith. For this reason, like all radical philosophies, it will prove popular to an unruly minority and be the cause of much suffering in the future.

That is a perfect example of what I am speaking of. What Wahhabism is or is not is irrelevant to the question of why it is able to grow. If you are right, that Wahhabism is the essential Evil, that does nothing to explain why someone who is not Wahhabist makes a concious decision to become Wahhabist and why some of those Wahhabists make a concious decision to become terrorists. Wahhabism exists because it is a tool. It only takes on disgruntled person to speak to people and point out how they are suffering under the dictatorships of their current leaders and if they choose to follow this one person, he will help them defeat their dictators and they will no longer suffer. As long as we encourage the environment of innocent people suffering for our gain (the oil trade), more and more of those suffering will give up all hope and resort to insane tactics. Focusing all your energy on retaliation for those insane tactics is an utterly useless cause - like focusing all your energy on defeating pneumonia while ignoring the real issue the AIDS infection.

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Focusing all your energy on retaliation for those insane tactics is an utterly useless cause - like focusing all your energy on defeating pneumonia while ignoring the real issue the AIDS infection.

I give people more credit for being intelligent enough to know the difference.

[Seaver]

For every effect, there is a cause. It's a basic principle of the universe. The point I made is that we discuss the issue of terrorism as if it had no cause but only poor excuses.

To give cause/effect is to ignore a persons right to choose the illogical. At anytime I can get a gun and shoot my neighbor, without any cause. While choices can be guided, coerced and manipulated they can never be fully controled. So saying cause/effect effects every person denies them the right of choosing the wrong decision which includes blowing up women and children in persuit of a stupid idea.

Focusing all your energy on retaliation for those insane tactics is an utterly useless cause - like focusing all your energy on defeating pneumonia while ignoring the real issue the AIDS infection.

Actually I see it the same way as arresting theives and murderers. No you havent stopped the crime from being committed, and in no way will it prevent every single other person from thereon out, but you divert many other people away from following in their footsteps.

I give you the stopsign in the middle of nowhere argument. You're driving in the middle of the desert, no cars within 100miles. You run into a stopsign, do you stop or drive through? Lets face it the only reason we stop is because we dont want to get ticketed, not because we think it's inherantly right. If there's no cop there why bother stopping? Now make that a bigger argument, why cower in a hole when there's no military force who would strike back at you for killing children on a mass scale?

You're looking at the problem as it it's solvable, I look at the problem as if it isnt, but we can hold it to a minimum.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Seaver

To give cause/effect is to ignore a persons right to choose the illogical. At anytime I can get a gun and shoot my neighbor, without any cause. While choices can be guided, coerced and manipulated they can never be fully controled. So saying cause/effect effects every person denies them the right of choosing the wrong decision which includes blowing up women and children in persuit of a stupid idea.

Of course. There will always be relatively random occasions of terrorism. Such as Oklahoma. To some small degree, the society of America is oppressive which is the cause of crime, violence and internal terrorism. To a vastly more significant degree, the Middle East is oppressive. There will always be insanity - but insanity is not born of dust, it materializes more readily through massive suffering. The insanity of child molestation typically comes from growing up in an abussive childhood. It is not a random occurence. The same principle applies to terrorism.

Actually I see it the same way as arresting theives and murderers. No you havent stopped the crime from being committed, and in no way will it prevent every single other person from thereon out, but you divert many other people away from following in their footsteps.

The methods we have choosen thus far to combat terrorism are much more akin to the death penalty for certain murderers. I do not advocate eliminating methods to prevent crimes - but there is no evidence that revenge tactics such as the death penalty does anything to stem the tide of murders.

You're looking at the problem as it it's solvable, I look at the problem as if it isnt, but we can hold it to a minimum.

Indeed - I firmly believe it is possible to relieve the overwhelming suffering that promotes the growth of insanity that leads to terrorism. I do not believe it is possible to destroy terrorism in the expectation that people will fear insanity and therefore accept their life of suffering.

You concept of holding it to a minimum is false. Continuing with the tactics as we have, attempting to solve the symptoms without addressing the root cause, will do nothing to slow it. In fact, it only leads to additional aggrivation of the root cause.