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?

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.

__________________
create evolution

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.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

james t kirk

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

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

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.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

james t kirk

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

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

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

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

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.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

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.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

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.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

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?

__________________
create evolution

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? 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.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

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.

__________________
create evolution

Seaver

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

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

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

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

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!

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

OpieCunningham

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

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

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.
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.
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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.