-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
400 people held hostage by Suicide Bombers/Rebels. in Russia
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
France would have been a "victim" because of the headscarf ban, US in iraq has nothing to do with anything. If the US had not, they would still be dealing with islamic terrorists over the ban. Al Qaeda even mentioned it on the tape the ban was a part of the crusaders mission or something along those lines.
Considering the stance of France, newspapers assumed they would be spared, AFP and french journalists had been viewed as "allies" by the terrorists in Iraq.
No, but in any war, there are certain actions that can be viewed as the tipping point for a side where you just can't justify yourself enough to come back up. This action is the chechyna tipping point and the perfect excuse for Putin to go off the charts brutal. If you think it was horrible before, Putin is going to show it can get worse. This operation by the rebels was just insane from every standpoint.
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
So what's their (terrorists/murderers') motivation? They must have realized it was likely to have the effect you described, right? Are they purposely trying to provoke an "off the charts brutal" response to force a renewed war and perhaps boost the status of whatever faction they represent?
Phoenix
Member
Death toll at 322
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/04/russia.school/index.html
Many killed in the gym when it caught fire and collapsed. Survivors report that a suicide bomber blew herself up in the gym killing many that died there, and many others found with gunshot wounds to the back.
There is no excusing this. The fallout from this incident will be severe.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/04/russia.school/index.html
Many killed in the gym when it caught fire and collapsed. Survivors report that a suicide bomber blew herself up in the gym killing many that died there, and many others found with gunshot wounds to the back.
There is no excusing this. The fallout from this incident will be severe.
You can't control people who don't want to be controlled. Russia will learn this. So will others. This idea that you can subordinate people with military force is stupid. Unless you kill everyone tied to the revolution, it will never end. The sad part is these conflicts are started and maintained by a small group of assholes on both sides, and the large manjority of people who suffer are in the middle and neutral. Chechens would probably live and work side-by-side with Russians with no problem, but you have some rebels and you have Putin and his cronies who can't get over their little pissing match. The world's run by assholes. PEACE.
Phoenix
Member
Pimpwerx said:
Yep, same goes for most of these situations. The Israelis and Palestinians in the majority just want all the shit to end, to be over with, and are willing to accept compromises to make that happen. But then there are the 'idiots and extremists' on both sides who just can't let it go. Its a cycle that never ends.
I'd like to ask one question in all honesty and curiosity:
What about human nature or the world has changed to the point where now, all of a sudden and contrary to 3000 years of history, things "will never end" in these sorts of situations? They "ended"-- or at least subsided for substantial periods of time-- dozens of times in the past, and yet now these situations are sources of endless and perpetual violence-- virtual tinderboxes in many cases. I'm honestly asking this, because personally I have no explanation for it. I'd like to say that people nowadays have a fuller understanding of their rights as human beings, except for the tiny fact that the majority of the world still exists under systems which are not democratic in nature, and, further, many of the agitators are not beholden to democratic, humanistic ideologies; so I ask how they would even have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve? Certainly western culture is not so omnipresent as to have infiltrated every corner of the globe and caused such a radical shift in people's mentalities to this end, right? I dunno...but I would love to hear other people's opinions.
What about human nature or the world has changed to the point where now, all of a sudden and contrary to 3000 years of history, things "will never end" in these sorts of situations? They "ended"-- or at least subsided for substantial periods of time-- dozens of times in the past, and yet now these situations are sources of endless and perpetual violence-- virtual tinderboxes in many cases. I'm honestly asking this, because personally I have no explanation for it. I'd like to say that people nowadays have a fuller understanding of their rights as human beings, except for the tiny fact that the majority of the world still exists under systems which are not democratic in nature, and, further, many of the agitators are not beholden to democratic, humanistic ideologies; so I ask how they would even have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve? Certainly western culture is not so omnipresent as to have infiltrated every corner of the globe and caused such a radical shift in people's mentalities to this end, right? I dunno...but I would love to hear other people's opinions.
videogamer
Banned
Ripclawe said:
It looks like they would like more information on how the crisis occured. Perhaps there was more information that the Russian government knew and was not available on television.
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040904142932.nd08ctc6
At least the Europeans have generally been more critical on the war in Chechnya than other nations.
Loki said:I'd like to ask one question in all honesty and curiosity:
What about human nature or the world has changed to the point where now, all of a sudden and contrary to 3000 years of history, things "will never end" in these sorts of situations? They "ended"-- or at least subsided for substantial periods of time-- dozens of times in the past, and yet now these situations are sources of endless and perpetual violence-- virtual tinderboxes in many cases. I'm honestly asking this, because personally I have no explanation for it. I'd like to say that people nowadays have a fuller understanding of their rights as human beings, except for the tiny fact that the majority of the world still exists under systems which are not democratic in nature, and, further, many of the agitators are not beholden to democratic, humanistic ideologies; so I ask how they would even have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve? Certainly western culture is not so omnipresent as to have infiltrated every corner of the globe and caused such a radical shift in people's mentalities to this end, right? I dunno...but I would love to hear other people's opinions.
Anybody have any thoughts regarding this?
Loki said:
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here... except that you don't understand how some people have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve (like Chechnyas daring to think they deserve to have their country back or refuse to be treated as sub-human scum) and it does not make "sense" to you because they're not subscribed to what you call "democratic, humanistic" ideologies?
Loki said:
... So only westerners can have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve? Or are you saying only western cultures teach people that?
No, no-- you're totally misunderstanding me.
My point is this:
If one looks back through history, one realizes that such situations as described in this thread vis-a-vis Russia/Chechnya did not always "never end", as some posters herein have asserted. In fact, many such conflagrations either never erupted or subsided for a great many years between flare-ups. So I'm asking what has changed nowadays that all such situations supposedly will "never end" unless you "kill all those connected to the revolution" (quotes are from Duane, but this question is not directed only at him), whereas in the past, many (but by no means all) of them did, in fact, effectively "end"; that is, they came to some sort of stability with regards to ongoing violence, even if the situation remained unjust according to our modern (and what I feel to be absolute) conception of the word (e.g., that subjugation of a people is always unjust). Contrary to what you may think, these egalitarian memes were not always prevalent in the world prior to their genesis in the realm of academia, and so I ask whether it is the very dissemination of those modes of thought which has spurred the recent trends we see re: these scenarios, or whether it's something else entirely; the fact that the majority of the world's people have never personally tasted democracy and/or human rights, and the fact that the viewpoint of these "revolutionaries" or "agitators" (or whatever you'd care to term them) isn't necessarily being informed by such notions, would seem to indicate that it is, in fact, not necessarily a fuller appreciation of their rights as human beings (as we currently understand it) which has spurred them to action.
Certainly I believe that all people have an intrinsic understanding of the injustice of oppression-- particularly that which is inflicted upon oneself-- independent of modern "democratic" or "humanistic" principles, but I feel that such inherent "knowledge", if you will, should have had similar effects both then and now (leading to a similar frequency of violent reprisals). People don't change unless their ideas do-- what idea has taken root amongst such peoples and informed their actions in this sphere? Why is our modern world much more skewed towards that "perpetual violence" state of affairs than were the people of centuries past? To put it succinctly, I feel that "instances of uprising against unjust situations" should remain relatively stable barring sweeping ideological change, seeing as how our intrinsic knowledge and nature as human beings does not change; certainly, our modern codified notions of democracy and human rights would count towards that "sweeping ideological change"-- the problem is that it seemingly hasn't made inroads as far as would be necessary to explain such an increase in "revolutionary" activity; this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of the world's people still have never tasted anything akin to democracy, and also by the fact that many such insurgents are not necessarily beholden to such ideologies and, in fact, may view such notions as anathema to their cause.
Certainly not the former, but more the latter in the sense that it is predominantly western culture which has codified and made explicit such precepts, as well as tending to their dispersion around the world. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that all people have an innate sense of injustice as far as that goes. I just don't feel that this alone can account for what appears to be an upsurge in violent agitation in these sorts of situations, and am looking for other, preferably ideological, causes (since penury and physical abuse have always existed and still exist, and thus are "controlled for" in that sense when examining such issues, whereas new ideas are continually being developed and propagated, and so can be viewed as something "new" that is added to the equation).
Obviously, I could be entirely mistaken about the basic premise itself, meaning that there has been no rise in the incidence of violence in these sorts of situations, but rather that it can be attributed to increased media scrutiny in an ever-shrinking world. This is entirely possible, and if that's what most people believe, then I am certainly willing to accept that (because it seems to be the most logical answer-- it accounts for some of the perceived increase, at the very least). I was just looking to stir conversation, because these sorts of discussions always tend to interest me-- if not anybody else.
Huh? What other forum-- OA? I don't post there anymore; I also wonder what you're implying (about my post) by this, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
Loki said:Huh? What other forum-- OA? I don't post there anymore; I also wonder what you're implying (about my post) by this, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
Yeah I edited that out.
Although you would be quite popular there with this kinda stuff:
You mean in the second half of the 20th century right (as in before holocaust, world war 1, world war 2, etc...) ?
Whatever values the west has they're just that-- their values and "tending to their dispersion around the world" is no different then the islamist wanting to spread islam and shari'a law throughout the world and especially the west. The former is IMO (emphasis on IMO) superior but I don't judge others too. That's what I think.
Loki said:
Well, maybe the fact that some people grow up with an understanding of the world such that everyone else is sub-human and worthless of life, and that "everyone else" has their main goal to destroy everything you stand for, and that you have a mission from this divine entity to establish the "right' way to live in this world which as instructed by that entity that those "other people" have no respect for and you take it upon yourself to set it right (with the help of that all-powerful entity). This struggle is eternal and will only end when everybody is like you.
In other words, welcome to Islamic fundamentalism.
I dont want to continue beyond this since talking more about it will just bring out too much hate here and most people just will manipulate facts/opinions to their agendas and wont care for an honest discussion. Also, I was just asking for clarification of your postI guess I went overboard and made a few wrong assumptions .
Well, first of all, the "second half" of the 20th century would be after the Holocaust and WW2 etc., not before.
I wasn't referring to what you're alluding to however, which are, I presume, things such as our containment policy regarding Communism from the 50's-80's along with its necessary proffering of democratic ideals in word and deed (yes, hypocritical and self-interested in many instances, but this was a feature of our containment policy-- to talk up the democratic, humanitarian principles our nation was founded upon); rather, in referring to the dissemination of ideas, I was speaking more of the long line of political and philosophical writings concerned with said ideals, which formed the bedrock upon which the nation was to stand. Our founding fathers merely seized upon notions which were already floating in the ether, in the collective consciousness of the West-- they didn't create them ex nihilo at the Constitutional Convention. ;PThe rest of your post, well...I'm not gonna touch that one with a ten-foot pole. Warning: flammable material.
I didn't have any of that in mind anyway, though Islam (or any religious or secular ideology) would certainly count as a cultural force which could serve to inform people's actions, as per my request for such. I don't believe it to be the entire picture, however, even where one is speaking strictly of Islamic peoples. Whatever values the west has they're just that-- their values and "tending to their dispersion around the world" is no different then the islamist wanting to spread islam and shari'a law throughout the world and especially the west. The former is IMO (emphasis on IMO) superior but I don't judge others too. That's what I think.
All such statements ultimately lead us to a debate about absolutism versus relativism (i.e., whether all values and ideas are necessarily equal simply due to their existence); as such, it is way beyond the scope of this topic, and, seeing as how I've already written entire volumes about that very issue on this forum (though not with regard to Islam and/or democracy in particular), I will gracefully bow out at this juncture.
My time (and sanity) are too valuable. 
Anybody have any thoughts? I'd like to think that this could be a more interesting discussion than that found in the current "Pootie Tang" thread, but maybe I'm wrong...
EDIT: And I didn't click on the Pootie Tang thread, I only read the title...so my good name remains unsullied.
I'd like to think that this could be a more interesting discussion than that found in the current "Pootie Tang" thread, but maybe I'm wrong... EDIT: And I didn't click on the Pootie Tang thread, I only read the title...so my good name remains unsullied.
Ripclawe said:
You assume they were kidnapped simply because they were French and the kidnappers had this specific demand in mind when they did.
More likely, they were kidnapped because the opportunity to kidnap foreigners presented itself with these particular individuals. With the lawlessness of Iraq, the increased security with the few foreigners remaining, I don't think terrorists really can be choosy in this case. If they could be, Italy, the US, Poland and England would be constant targets.
They kidnap who they can, bring attention to themselves and the relative chaos of Iraq and make the appropriate demands depending on the victims they get. The main goal is still to chase the US, its allies and whatever contractors working for them out of Iraq.
So basically, Frenchmen get kidnapped in a series of kidnapping with other foreigners, in Iraq, of all countries, because the US kicked the hornet's nest that created this hellhole in the first place. Period.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
i read that they raped many of the women/girls as well.. its really sick what heppened there/
its really sick what heppened there/The people who did this are pure evil. There's no excuse for purposely setting out to murder children. These children weren't accidentally killed, or casualties of war, they were targets. It's morally apprehensible under all terms. Honestly, the Chechnyan rebels have done more to hurt their cause by doing this, because who would want to bargain with baby killers? What kind of government would these people instill if they ever did gain independence?
TheQueen'sOwn
insert blank space here
They have become fighters with the sole motivation of continued fighting.
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
Exactly, which is why I wondered (in my post above) what the killers' real motivation was. They have to realize that such a horrific atrocity is only likely to provoke a brutal response (as Ripclawe said), which suggests that they want a brutal response. After all, if they just wanted to keep the pressure on Russia, there are other acts and targets they could have chosen that would generate plenty of terror but not produce such a visceral reaction of disgust. They specifically chose an act that they must have known would inspire universal disgust throughout the world.
The question is, why do they want a continued brutal war? Well, a Chechnya with no one else to turn to, under siege and despised by the world, is more likely to turn to the radical Islamist movement...
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen said:
I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the make up of Chechnya, but I'm assuming that it's pretty heavily Muslim already. Not that everyone there is a radical, but there's certainly a strong terrorist component there. I think that these people probably thought that this would somehow help their cause. I don't think you can weigh in to strongly on the motivations of people who willingly strap bombs to themselves and blow up school houses. If you were to discern what their motivations were, it would probably be something that was difficult to understand by the mentally fit.
Ecrofirt said:
Don't blame him when it was Bush that said the world is safer now...Odd considering that there has been more worldwide terrorists attacks since 9/11 than before. BTW, they are not insane...they're motivated and smart enough to pull this off so don't underestimate them...like Bush has done.
Alcibiades
Member
Well, the US (along with many allies around the world) declared a war on these terrorist, particularly Islamic fundamentalist groups.3rdman said:
Did anyone expect attacks to go down? Did attacks from the Japanese on our military stop after Pearl Harbor because we responded so resolutely.
Was 9/11 supposed to be the last major bid for Al-Qaida's terror?
No matter how good our pre-emptive attempts are through intelligence, expecting attacks to decrease is pretty silly, unless there was already tons of planning and infiltration. If anything 9/11 showed that a new effort was going to have to take place and that it meant war with this band of extremists.
If I was Al-Qaida, I'd step up attacks, not decrease them. And since I'd been planning for ages with a cell structure and no top-down leadership command, I doubt attempts to get to every cell were going to succeed.
The War in Afganistan and Iraq weren't supposed to end those particular cell groups. They were supposed to change the sphere of confontration to THEIR turf and help in bringing accountability to governments in the Mid-East that harbor and support their actions.
Phoenix
Member
Loki said:
That's easy, because the world is a whole lot different than it was 3000 years ago. Things ended because empires were eliminated entirely, cultures were assimilated entirely, the things that caused rebellions caused large socio-economic change.
Today the changes that would enable stability in those situations are not allowed by larger meta governmental structures like the UN, or foreign interests. It is becoming more and more rare for racial, social, etc. conflicts to 'end' with either the brutal killing of all the opposition or a complete overthrow of the government. I always compare it to forest fires. There was a time when they burned out of control because it was natural for them to do so. Now we do smaller attempts at controlling those fires - but it ends up not being particularly healthy for the forest floor so we then end up with massive fires that SHOULD burn harder, but we stop them.
I see the same thing happening here. You have 2 sides that aren't allowed to burn out - to fight to a conclusion because they are brought to the bargaining table. As such the idealogies don't meet with finality... there is no 'crusade' through which all of the energies of an ideal are 'spent'. The fires are no longer allowed to burn all of their fuel.
And you're nothing but a fucking Bush apologist.Ecrofirt said:
Seriously, looks like btrboyev really got under your skin by bringing up that quote. You should be calling Bush an idiot for making such a ridiculously outrageous, vague and innacurate comment, which was obviously targeted at sheeps such as yourself. "Mission Teh Accomplished". :rolleyes
I'll bet you anything that the Chechen rebels responsable for this would disagree with this statement. Everyone is always self-righteous in their cause for mass killings, especially in war.KingV said:
ghostface said:
It's still a morally reprehensible line. Those who take this view, I believe, deserve death. A school full of children is not a legitimate target, any way you slice it. It's like attacking senior citizens, hospitals, and the mentally disabled. How sick and depraved to attack those who can't defend themselves. The WTC was a more legitimate target than this, even though, as a complex full of non combatants it's not truly a legitimate target. At least it had economic ties to the perceived enemy. What's the point of killing children except for abject hatred?
Phoenix
Member
KingV said:
I would partially disagree 'in spirit' with what you're saying. Attacking non-combatants is never 'allowable'. The people in the WTC were no more 'rendering aid to the enemy' than the schools, universities, hospitals, etc. that have been targets before. No non combatant should ever be a legitimate target. While non-combatants may be killed during hostilities between two combatants, specifically targetting non-combatants is never acceptable.
But that's just your take on it, right? I mean, the Chechen rebel could go on and on about how killing those children was necessary, and in his mind, he will be 100% right, no matter how stupid he might sound to you. Just like how the "collateral damage" line that is used in war time to justify the accidental death of civilians could be seen as a retarded justifcation by the civilians that are actually being killed.
ghostface said:
Still does not make him right. He can be a fucking idiot if he wants and that still does not change the fact that he's not right.
ghostface said:
Those civilians can think whatever they want. It's not a retarded justification. It would be if, like the Chechnyan rebels, the U.S. purposely attacked schools.
KingV said:
Ok, not defending these actions, but this raises an important question about the modern state of war. When your enemy is russia, the united states or their allies, and their means to defend themselves militarily are absurdly out of your ability to attack, what do you do?
No doubt attacking civilians is wrong, but what exactly is the right course of action?
Phoenix said:
That's a very interesting take on things. Though I wasn't necessarily comparing what was happening 3000 years ago to what is happening now, because these things tended to "die out" even 100 or 200 years ago; your analysis would provide at least some explanation as to why that is.
And if it was that "easy", as you say, to understand why there has been such a shift, I wouldn't have asked the question-- I'm not dumb, you know.
Your theory is reasonable, but certainly can't account for the whole picture imo.ghostface said:
Nearly every legal system in the world establishes a difference between accidental death and purposely killing someone. Even Islamists that support taking women and children as hostages recognize the fundamental difference between killing them purposefully and accidentally killing them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
It's almost a fundamental human ability to see that difference. If some guy gets in a car accident late at night at runs your mother off the road and she dies, that's completely different than hunting her down, murdering and raping her. If one can't see the difference between a horrible accident and a horrible action, it's more indicative of that person's shortcomings than a difference in culture.
While I can see some circumstances where moral relativism may apply, this is not one of them. You can't just apply moral relativism across the board. At some point there has to be a line in the sand that says "This is wrong" and "This is not wrong". Eventually, you have to say "I don't care what their point of view is, killing children is wrong." Would it be "ok" for me to rape and murder at will because I thought it was an ok thing to do? In this case, they are wrong. Killing children is wrong, there is no cause on this earth worth murdering schoolhouses full of children for. I say again, what kind of people murder children? Do these people deserve what they want? What kind of society will they set up once they have autonomy? How can you trust people who think pointlessly murdering children is ok to set up an remotely reasonable form of a society? I realize that the vast majority of Chechens probably do not condone killing children, but if this is the example you set for yourself in this world....
maharg said:
Diplomatic means, peaceful protest. See also, Gandhi http://www.engagedpage.com/gandhi.html
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked