[karajorma]

Well there's news that anyone with half a brain could figure out.

When on Friday the news agencies were still saying that only 300 people were in the school it was fairly obvious to everyone that the news agencies weren't telling the truth. To be honest I can't think of a good reason why they'd do it unless they were planning to storm the school later.

As for the lower death toll that's probably just the way the russians work. In the west we over estimate and work down. In russia maybe they underestimate and work up.

[ionia23]

So they downplayed how bad it really was.  Whoopie doo.  What's that mean?

[Rictor]

It means they would readily lie to cover up inconvenient facts. This instance, in and of itself, is not that important, sort of like when Bush said he saw the first plane hit on TV even though there was no footage available at the time. It is relatively benign, however, its shows the capacity and willingness to lie. And from there, you use your imagination.

"It doesn't suit our president," a Kremlin political consultant, Gleb Pavlovsky, said on the broadcast. "Lies, which really acted in the terrorists' favor, did not suit him at all. Lies were weakening us and making the terrorists more violent."

Notice how the emphasis is on the lies being revelaed not because people ought to know or anything like that, no, its suited Putin.

"At such moments," anchor Sergei Brilyov declared, "society needs the truth."

So, presumably the media, that is to say the government (state run, remember) decides what society needs and when. Cool, no independent thinking involved.

The broadcast included no apology and referred only to the most blatant misstatement by officials, the claim that only 354 hostages were inside the school. It did not acknowledge that the hostage-takers had demanded an end to the war in Chechnya (news - web sites) or that the government continues to give conflicting information about whether any of the guerrillas remain at large, who they were and how many were killed.

That sort of speaks for itself.

So now, who is at fault? Am I paranoid for not taking the Russian ****ing government's word on it, or are you naive for believing that a man like Vladimir Putin would never, ever decieve anyone.

[ionia23]

It isn't the deception that anyone should take issue with, it is the quality of that deception.   So the death toll was much higher that originally let on.  What's that really change in favorite of the people who carried out this act in the first place, and the people/causes they were representing?  All that does is reinforce anger further.  Governments not being totally straightforward is something I have come to expect.  If the Average Joe can do it, I'm never surprised when it happens further up the chain.

Brilliant move, really.  By the terrorists choosing to do what they did, they have safely guaranteed that Chechnya will never be free.

See, Ghandi had it right.  That guy was able to face down the British empire.  He didn't need to strap plastic explosives to his body and wander into a pub in London. No.  He defeated his oppressor by irritating the hell out of him.  He made him self annoying and obnxious, and made it clear he wasn't going away.  It worked.  he forced his opponent to look bad to the rest of the world and they won.

Desperation or no, once you bring in deliberate, targeted acts against civilians, I don't give two ***** what you're fighting for.  Whatever cause you had hops right out the window.  

How you can sympathize with this escapes me.  have you no shame whatsoever?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
See, Ghandi had it right.  That guy was able to face down the British empire.  He didn't need to strap plastic explosives to his body and wander into a pub in London. No.  He defeated his oppressor by irritating the hell out of him.  He made him self annoying and obnxious, and made it clear he wasn't going away.  It worked.  he forced his opponent to look bad to the rest of the world and they won.

Desperation or no, once you bring in deliberate, targeted acts against civilians, I don't give two ***** what you're fighting for.  Whatever cause you had hops right out the window.

I've got to say that I agree with you there. Ghandi and Martin Luther King achieved far more peacefully than most terrorists ever do.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23
How you can sympathize with this escapes me.  have you no shame whatsoever?

You can sympathize with the Chechen people without condoning this sort of action.  Same as you can sympathize with the Russians suffering due to terrorism without condoning war crimes commited in Chechnya.

If every person in Chechnya approved and participated in the attack, maybe you could drop sympathy.  But to do otherwise is narrow-minded - there's plenty of terrorists who use the actions of the minority (the US army or government) to justify attacking the majority (the people).

I've not seen any approval of the terrorists, needless to say.  In fact, sympathy doesn't imply approval or condoning an act.

(NB: 'war crimes' is the military legal equivalent of terrorism, IMO.  I don't think we need to debate the application of 'terrorism' to military personal, because we already have this suitable term)

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14


You can sympathize with the Chechen people without condoning this sort of action.  Same as you can sympathize with the Russians suffering due to terrorism without condoning war crimes commited in Chechnya.

If every person in Chechnya approved and participated in the attack, maybe you could drop sympathy.  But to do otherwise is narrow-minded - there's plenty of terrorists who use the actions of the minority (the US army or government) to justify attacking the majority (the people).

(NB: 'war crimes' is the military legal equivalent of terrorism, IMO.  I don't think we need to debate the application of 'terrorism' to military personal, because we already have this suitable term)

That makes total sense.  Yeah, it's possible to sympathize with the plight 'behind' a terrorist attack without condoning the attack itself.  However, the plight absolutely never justifies the attack itself, which some people around here (and they know who they are) try to do.  

Think on this: Does anyone really believe that the actions of terrorists are truly for whatever cause they happen to get on about?  I mean, a classic example is Operation Rescue over here, an anti-abortion organization (headed by a man, which I find very amusing).  They claim to be about saving the unborn, when their actual agenda is the subjugation of women.

I no more believe that the terrorists who committed this recent act in Russia were about freedom for the Chechen people than I believe Operation Rescue is about saving unborn children.  The action defines the original intent.

As I wrote in another post, the problem with war and warlike conditions is that it hands a free pass to sadists allowing them to commit whatever atrocities they want in the name of "insert cause here".

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma
I've got to say that I agree with you there. Ghandi and Martin Luther King achieved far more peacefully than most terrorists ever do.

Wow, I said something agreeable. Go figure .  Thanks.

It just makes sense.  Terrorism doesn't work.  Irritation does.  One of the many reasons we have Gay Pride rallies out here.  I mean, not that we're that open minded over here as a culture twords homosexuals anyway (a little better than we were), but how responsive do you think the public would be here if homosexuals pushed for equal rights by blowing up coffee shops full of patrons?

*thinks*

Okay, they can blow up Starbucks.  No complaints here .

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23


That makes total sense.  Yeah, it's possible to sympathize with the plight 'behind' a terrorist attack without condoning the attack itself.  However, the plight absolutely never justifies the attack itself, which some people around here (and they know who they are) try to do.  

Think on this: Does anyone really believe that the actions of terrorists are truly for whatever cause they happen to get on about?  I mean, a classic example is Operation Rescue over here, an anti-abortion organization (headed by a man, which I find very amusing).  They claim to be about saving the unborn, when their actual agenda is the subjugation of women.
 

Frequently, yes.  I think most terrorists believe what they do is 'valid', possibly simply just to convince themselves to do it.

From a personal point of view, I don't really regard terrorists as particularly rational or sane people... what we see as senseless slaughter or violence is to them a valid target or operation for their cause.   It's a worldview warped by hate and grief and god knows what else.

And I can sympathise with them for those conditions that have caused this... loss of rationality.  Revenge is a frequent and powerful motive, and we've all experienced it to some degree.

But I can't sympathise with the actions they take..... killing is never a solution.

(Of course, this only applies to certain groups.  Some are just plain brainwashed and/or nuts)

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14
From a personal point of view, I don't really regard terrorists as particularly rational or sane people... what we see as senseless slaughter or violence is to them a valid target or operation for their cause.   It's a worldview warped by hate and grief and god knows what else.

I think you're absolutely right on that.  It does require a certain sense of insanity (or courage, or brazen cruelty, depending on who you ask) to carry out acts such as this.  

So, what you're saying is, the solution is to clean up the conditions that create an environment where terrorist acts seem to be 'the way to go'.  Is that right?

I'd be all for that.  My only question would be, how could one accomplish that without giving the message that terrorism 'works'?

[Vanguard]

Invalidating the cause of a people who have done nothing in support of acts of terrorism is a double edged sword.  With that kind of "logic" you can legitimize things like the fall of the WTC Towers on September 11th and attacks on American troops in Iraq.  

I don't believe every man, woman, and child in Chechnya condoned or cooperated with these terroists anymore than I believe that every American soldier in Iraq condoned or cooperated with the abusers at a certain sadistic prison.  But if I choose to ignore the distinction, suddenly everything and everyone becomes a viable target.  

bin Laden attacked innocents on September 11th who did nothing to harm him.  He used a murderously sweeping generalization to kill thousands based upon his tainted views.  Should we too look upon the Palestinians and Basques and all the other nations without states in the same light?

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by ionia23


My only question would be, how could one accomplish that without giving the message that terrorism 'works'?

No matter how you do it, some people are going to scream that offering these people an open hand is sending that very message.  Sometimes you just have to be brave and take the heat on the home front as well.  Too often, politicians are not.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by aldo_14


And I can sympathise with them for those conditions that have caused this... loss of rationality.  Revenge is a frequent and powerful motive, and we've all experienced it to some degree.

 

Bingo!  I can't see anything wrong with feeling sympathy for the people who are undeniably living under the shadow cast by a government that is bellicose towards them empowered by a military not known for its hospitality during occupations.  If feeling sorry for the kids there who have yet to do anything atrocious is the same as cheering on terrorists then people have some seriously whacked beliefs.  Take some pills or something.  A lot of them.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23


I think you're absolutely right on that.  It does require a certain sense of insanity (or courage, or brazen cruelty, depending on who you ask) to carry out acts such as this.  

So, what you're saying is, the solution is to clean up the conditions that create an environment where terrorist acts seem to be 'the way to go'.  Is that right?

That's exactly my philosophy.

Originally posted by ionia23

I'd be all for that.  My only question would be, how could one accomplish that without giving the message that terrorism 'works'?

That is arguably the hardest task of all.... hence why no-one seems to try it.  

First thing, I guess, would be general goodwill - spend a lot on projects that help globally (i.e. clean water for Africa).  Make these key to the governments interests - i.e. so an attack upon them is seen as an attack upon these projects.  

In other words, help a 3rd party out first.  Show that you can do so.

Second, is possibly the hardest of all.  Publicly say you're (Russians, US, etc) willing to talk about the situation and resolve it.  This is hard as hell, because you need to drop the old desire for justice.  It may be impossible.  It may not be necessary, of course.  It depends on....
(NB: the key aspect is to recognise both sides see each other as 'criminals'...option 2 is to hold everyone accountable for real or imagined crimes, which may lead to resentment)
EDIT; this is the trickiest thing to resolve.... how do you broker a 'solution' that will remove peoples wish for revenge, especially when the arch-villians are men (or women, let's not be sexist ) with a role as spiritual or political figureheads.  Maybe it's not even necessary.... maybe you can just create conditions that stop the recruitment process, and 'ride the storm' as it were.  I really don't know.

Thirdly, place the 'power' in the hands of the people.  Terrorists gain support because they excercise - or claim to - the will of a usually opressed people.  Remove that opression / disenfranchisation, and the people won't need terrorism to speak for them.  This may require removing undemocratic governments that support you, and actually encouraging hostile ones to express their view.

Fourthly, guarentee safety.  Of everyone.  i.e. if Israel gives up Palestinian regions, then it must be assured of sovereignty and safety.

Fifth, maximise the use and power of the UN as a neutral third party...even if they hurt your interests in doing so.

Of course, this is a 5 minute summary of ideas (may not work atall, it's 12:45 am and I've not really thought this through).... it'll never happen, because it would require governments and people to drop self-interest.

And it's a bastard to work out.

But part 1 would defo be a start.

[Rictor]

So, ionia, if you believe that terrorist organizations are rarely if ever fighting for their stated cause, then it stands to reason that you feel the same way about governments, si?

While I do favour non-violence, very much so, I also believe, and have for some time, that Ghandi for example was an isolated incident, a man with the right vision at the right time that allowed for decolonization without violence. He happened upon the closing periods of the British Empire, where countless other colonies (not only British) were declaring indepedence.

Yes, Ghandi was able to pull it off, and yes, the way he handled things should be looked up to, but will it always work, or even most of the time? No. For one thing, there are certain sections of the world which frankly no one gives two ****s about. Chechnya is one of them. There are many countries in which injustices equal to those perpetrated upon (and continue to be perpetrated upon) the Palestinians or the Iraqis are occuring, and yet not so much as a single story about them. Chomsky (among others) did a media analysis for the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and similar events in East Timor (perpetrated by the invading Indonesian army). In the mainstream American media (as well as I believe major European media, not quite sure on this point), there was hardly a mention, I mean literally a mention, of the crimes in East Timor, because Indonesia was an official ally and was using mostly US weapons to murder Timorese. Pol Pot however, being a Commie and an official enemy, recieved enormous attention. The disparity between media coverage for the two cases was something like thousands of times the order of magnitutde.

Stuff like nonviolence, hunger strikes and all that, it only works if someone is actually watching. And thats why I favour brining Chechnya to the world's view, because that would make non violence a hell of a lot easier. For every Nelson Mandela that declares victory, there are ten who are executed. And I for one do not really regard the Russians (or most other government and armies for that matter) as jolly old fellows who get queasy when a few thousands Chechens are murdered. Hard though it may be to accept, there are times when military resistance is simply the only alternative.

[Flipside]

This is why there is such a problem in Iraq, alas, a general free-for-all for anyone there helping. It's a pity, because the ones that generally suffer are the ones that do want to make Iraq a better place. It's the policies of those who just want Iraq that are getting them killed.

If I were Putin, my first step would be to step down on my army. Hard. The anger of the Chechnyans is, in some ways, justified, as horrible as it is that children should suffer.

It makes me wonder whether Putin has actually lost control of his own army, after all, Russias strength always came from it's Generals, not it's head of State. it's almost as though they've set up little Baronies in there.

Stopping the atrocities won't heal the wound, but it would at least give a chance to grieve and maybe think. The problem is that the Chechnyans have far more to grieve for than the Russians. The only way things are going to change is if people stop turning a blind eye. What happens in Chechnya every day is worse than what happened in Abu Ghraib, and needs to be as publicly scutinised and condemned in precisely the same way.

Basically, they won't do anything if they don't think anyone will stop them.

[Vanguard]

Yes, but unfortunately some peoples sweeping anger would have us consider them all terroists and bomb them all.  I admit I'm curious how much ordnance (in tons) it might take to finally subdue any resistance.  

Russia still possesses one of the most powerful militaries in the world, yet for the better part of a decade a bunch of ragtag insurgents have staved off their own destruction with AK-47s and anti-armor weaponry.  Therefore I wonder if high-alt bombing would actually accomplish much.  Well, accomplish anything more than another dreadful school siege.

[Rictor]

Flipside: exactly. I absolutely agree.

except the part about Putin. Now, I'm not really qualified to speak about Russian politics, other than what little I read, but it seems to me that Putin is in full control. Given that he comes from a spy/military background, and that he is quite the authoritarian, my opinion is that he is not powerless to stop hardline policies by te military, but rather that he is thier source. Sure, there are tons of things that could be done if one goes into it with the aim of preventing violence, righting wrongs and actually doing a damn thing about helping the downtrodden and oppressed. But who ever said that is the aim of the Russian government, and Putin specifically? I simply can't bring myself to believe that that man (or, said I've said, most heads of state around the world) values human life. Everything he has done appears to the contrary.

But others than that, right on.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
For every Nelson Mandela that declares victory, there are ten who are executed.

And how many terrorists can claim victory? The numbers aren't even that high.  

Besides eveyone is watching Palestine so why haven't they tried it there?

Some people resort to violence even when it's not the best answer just because it's easiest way for them to get power.

[ionia23]

Putin blasts U.S. on terror stance
From CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Posted: 2:48 AM EDT (0648 GMT)


 
Mourners weep over the coffins of hostages killed in the siege.
     
 
 Refinance Rates Just Got Lower
Lock in the lowest rates of the summer. Get up to 4 free refinance quotes.
www.lowermybills.com

LendingTree.com - Official Site
Lendingtree - Find a mortgage, refinance, home equity or auto loan now. Receive...
www.lendingtree.com

Reduce Your Credit Card Debt by 50%
Lower your monthly payments with a low rate debt consolidation loan.
www.lowermybills.com

RealEstate.com - Official Site
Find a real estate agent, search online listings, request financing options and...
www.realestate.com  
 

 
 VIDEO
The first of many funerals begin in the Russian town of Beslan.

PLAY VIDEO


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

Arab world responds to terror caused by Muslim extremists

PLAY VIDEO


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

Putin vows to step up war on terrorists after bloody week

PLAY VIDEO


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

Timeline reconstructs bloody end to hostage standoff.

PLAY VIDEO
 

RELATED
• Gallery:  Bloody end to school siege

• Gallery:  Victims mourned

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

• Russia mourns siege victims
• Families begin burying dead
• Putin: 'An attack on our country'
• Chechen figure condemns acts
• Doubts cast on Chechnya policy
• Siege prompts Arab horror
• Interactive: School grounds map
• Timeline:  How siege unfolded
• Eyewitness:  Death and horror
• 'We'll shoot until our guns stop'
• Siege jolts world leaders  

QUICKVOTE
  Do you agree with President Putin that the Soviet Union collapse left Russia unable to respond to attacks?
 
Yes  
No  
VIEW RESULTS  
 
 

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
   Chechnya (Russia)  
 
 Vladimir V. Putin  
 
 Russia  
 
 or Create your own  
 
Manage alerts | What is this?  
 
 
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that mid-level officials in the U.S. government were undermining his country's war on terrorism by supporting Chechen separatists, whom he compared to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Putin's charge, made in a meeting with a group of western foreign policy experts, came just days after hundreds of people, mostly children, died in the bloody end to the Beslan siege.

Putin also defended his government's decision to storm the school and said the hostage holders had begun shooting children out of boredom.

His comments did not suggest the final raid was triggered by the shooting of children.

In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person.

But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."

Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the U.S. talking to al Qaeda.

These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?" he asked.

Putin said the Chechen separatists are trying to ignite ethnic tensions in the former Soviet Union and it could have severe repercussions.

"Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of policies in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"

Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.

The Russian president also justified the rescue operation in Beslan, conceding that it took time to mobilize the operation.

He said Russian special forces stormed the school knowing they themselves were likely to be killed.

In one dramatic moment, Putin said Russian security forces overheard a disturbing walkie-talkie conversation between the terrorists:

"What are you doing? Why? I hear some noise. What's going on? I'm just in the middle of shooting some children."

"They were bored," Putin said. "So they shot children."

Putin said investigators determined the hostage takers included 10 fighters from "Arab" countries, along with others from the former Soviet Union and one person from North Ossetia where the hostage crisis unfolded.

Putin said the terrorists' goal was to ignite conflict between two local ethnic groups, the Ingush and the Ossetians.

In other comments, Putin said Russia would take its own approach to democratic reform.

"We'll do this at our own pace," he said. Democracy can mean different things in different countries, he said.

"In Russia, democracy is who shouts the loudest," he said. "In the U.S., it's who has the most money." - Putin, today.

Interesting.

 As i said earlier, any hope Chechnya ever had for turning into the fundamentalist nation it wanted to be is gone.