We are all Russians

[Ralph]

I would. It's not a "but." Did he Israeli do this act simply because they were born hating Palestinians? Of course not. The palestinians commited their own acts of terrorism to the Israelis, and the parents who go into the school feel justified for revenge. Maybe their own children were killed, or relative/friend's children.

An eye for an eye is THEIR justification, for the Chechnya Rebels/terrorists and the hypothetical Israeli parents. I condemn the act itself and the previous act which brought about the current one. Nowhere do I say this is a good justification, all I have said is that it is the justification THEY use.



None have the right or justification, but it is understandable (but not justified or morally right) if they start being violent. Weren't there the Black Panthers during MLK's time?

Gem

The part that bothers me is manifestos analogy with the woman wearing a "rape me" shirt and the suggestion that "she should have been a tad more careful".

maybe not to you..but to me...this implies that the victim somehow contributed to what was done to her. It suggests she was somehow negligent & if she was more careful maybe this never would have happened.

I'm just trying to find out what the schoolchildren did that invited there being machine-gunned & clubbed to death.



I don't doubt that Russian troops probably committed atrocities in Chechnya. If my children were killed by Russian soldiers I'm sure I'd want vengence...................but it would be vengence against Russian soldiers. NOT a schoolhouse full of innocent kids.

When Hamas blows up a bus full of kids----the Israelis target the terrorists. Sometimes a civilian gets killed but Israelis DON'T go marching into schools with the sole intent of murdering children.

 

[renata]

Renata, If I have offended, I apologize. Perhaps I think to much and reflect to long and should just feel more.

Or maybe I have a justifiable opinion of humanity...which, dear lady, you do a lot to restore.

Again, sorry if I offended. Sadness for a life needlessly lost , especially a young one, is always appropriate.

You did not offend me, and I am sorry if my comments were too harsh. This affected me quite a bit, and in these cases I hope for people to be buried before they become subjects of someone's talking points, to prop up an existing agenda-no matter what the agenda. The trend to use tragedies as "proof" of whatever position one holds is not new, but as I said, I wish there was a moratorium where everyone (and I am mostly irritated by comments outside this board) just limited themselves to grieving with the victims, not pushing their own views. It is probably an unreasonable request, so my apologies for making anyone feel I was targeting or condemning them.

 

[Lucky]

renata: I am glad you came back and said this, because for several hours I have been wanting to express my feelings about this tragedy, but the subject of the thread seemed to have changed.

I, too, wish we could sit a decent shiva for the slaughtered innocents before making political points.

I just want to say that the Russian people have my love, sympathy and support for ever.

Also, it is right and proper to hate the perpetrators of this evil; no-one else.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Ralph:

Read Epepke's thread. He's saying "This was wrong .....PERIOD".

I read your thread & it's "This was wrong.....BUT"

You're surely not advocating that something should be condemned and the context of it should not be discussed. And that next time something similar happens it should be condemned PERIOD, and the next time ... I suspect that you're claiming that discussing context is equivalent to "blaming the victim". If that is your claim, it's not true.

 

[Mycroft]

from Ralph:You're surely not advocating that something should be condemned and the context of it should not be discussed. And that next time something similar happens it should be condemned PERIOD, and the next time ... I suspect that you're claiming that discussing context is equivalent to "blaming the victim". If that is your claim, it's not true.

One can say that this terrorist action was wrong PERIOD and then still discuss the history of the Chechnyan conflict and compare atrocities from all sides.

It's when one gets confused and thinks that the shooting in the back of children as they try to run away should be blamed on anyone other than the one who pulls the trigger where we see the logical disconnect.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

The part that bothers me is manifestos analogy with the woman wearing a "rape me" shirt and the suggestion that "she should have been a tad more careful".

maybe not to you..but to me...this implies that the victim somehow contributed to what was done to her. It suggests she was somehow negligent & if she was more careful maybe this never would have happened.

I'm just trying to find out what the schoolchildren did that invited there being machine-gunned & clubbed to death.



I don't doubt that Russian troops probably committed atrocities in Chechnya. If my children were killed by Russian soldiers I'm sure I'd want vengence...................but it would be vengence against Russian soldiers. NOT a schoolhouse full of innocent kids.

When Hamas blows up a bus full of kids----the Israelis target the terrorists. Sometimes a civilian gets killed but Israelis DON'T go marching into schools with the sole intent of murdering children.

Bully for them. But when you're out-armed, and facing an army vastly larger than yours, you might play dirty. Again, not justifying it, just explaining it.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

OK, not all nor most Muslims are like this. All the ones I know are decent human beings (I think). I'm even willing to eat at Muslim-owned restaurants, so don't call me a paranoid.

But there's a serious problem here that isn't merely attributable to there being a few crazies here and there.

From the (UK) Telegraph:

Cleric supports targeting children

An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Mohammed said: "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq. ...

So no school anywhere is safe. There's always some grievance, if not alliance to the USA or Russia.

We should all make like Israel and arm the teachers. That wouldn't stop the problem entirely, but it would make the outcome less tragic.

I have already stated elsewhere on this forum that I think there is a case for Chechen separatism, but these guys have crossed the line for human consideration.

According to the BBC, many of the perpetrators were not Chechens, but Arabs.

High death toll in Russia siege

Scroll down a bit.

... Russian officials have described some of the hostage-takers as mercenaries from Arab countries. ...

I believe the report, but I don't think "mercenaries" is a correct description. They may be getting paid to be there, but it is a labor of love, Muslim style.

I don't like any religion, but I have a particular distaste for folks who are trying to kill us. Even if they claim to be atheists like me.

 

[Ralph]

Bully for them. But when you're out-armed, and facing an army vastly larger than yours, you might play dirty. Again, not justifying it, just explaining it.

I know you're not justifying this----just trying to explain it.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your analogy though. I kind of agree with you that if a woman walks around sending out some clear cut signals to "F me"-----and someone does......she shouldn't be totally surprised.

As I've allready said (TWICE)---just what was it those kids did that was the equivalent of the you "rape-me" shirt.

This is the same kind of "logic" we heard after 9/11.

"Sure it was wrong to crash planes into buildings .....BUT....afterall--the US needs to reconsider it's mideast policy blah blah blah.......

As if the people on those planes or in those buildings had anything at all to do with US policy in the mid-east.

 

[geni]

OK, not all nor most Muslims are like this. All the ones I know are decent human beings (I think). I'm even willing to eat at Muslim-owned restaurants, so don't call me a paranoid.

But there's a serious problem here that isn't merely attributable to there being a few crazies here and there.

From the (UK) Telegraph:

Cleric supports targeting children

How did this make there news? There is a lot of talk in the uk

We should all make like Israel and arm the teachers. That wouldn't stop the problem entirely, but it would make the outcome less tragic.

So you want a garentee that there are going to be guns in the school? Terroist and other attacks on schools with guns in the uk are pretty rare

I have already stated elsewhere on this forum that I think there is a case for Chechen separatism, but these guys have crossed the line for human consideration.

How about Ingush?

According to the BBC, many of the perpetrators were not Chechens, but Arabs.

High death toll in Russia siege

Scroll down a bit.


I believe the report, but I don't think "mercenaries" is a correct description. They may be getting paid to be there, but it is a labor of love, Muslim style.

Why do you belive it? Russian reporting has not been very good so far.

 

[Gem]

Orignally posted by Ralph

The part that bothers me is manifestos analogy with the woman wearing a "rape me" shirt and the suggestion that "she should have been a tad more careful".

maybe not to you..but to me...this implies that the victim somehow contributed to what was done to her. It suggests she was somehow negligent & if she was more careful maybe this never would have happened.

I'm just trying to find out what the schoolchildren did that invited there being machine-gunned & clubbed to death.



I don't doubt that Russian troops probably committed atrocities in Chechnya. If my children were killed by Russian soldiers I'm sure I'd want vengence...................but it would be vengence against Russian soldiers. NOT a schoolhouse full of innocent kids.

When Hamas blows up a bus full of kids----the Israelis target the terrorists. Sometimes a civilian gets killed but Israelis DON'T go marching into schools with the sole intent of murdering children.

Actually, MM's analogy isn't what I'm thinking of. It's more of what others did to the rapist that are part of the explanation (childhood problems/neglect/beatings). So in the case of the siege, the perpretators vented their anger on targets they could take on.

but it would be vengence against Russian soldiers. NOT a schoolhouse full of innocent kids.

The problem is that they can't. Or in the event that they can, the event will be inneffective in sending a message and be forgotten as no coverage will be done on it. Does anyone remember individual Chechnyans gunmen? Or even palestenians gunmen?

Not to mention, fighting back against Russian soldiers in this case is innefective, just like Palestinian gunmen fighting against Israeli tanks. If you want revenge against your oppressors, and you can't hurt the soldiers, the next unfortunate logical step is to attack their weak spot: the civilians. This, I think, is what the Palestinians are doing, as well as the AMerican Indians when they attacked settlers.

Also, to a lesser extent, this is why soldiers vent their anger on prisoners. Like when the Japanese army when they were losing WW2, like the Japanese civlians who beat up the American pilots because they bombed cities.

Gem

 

[epepke]

One can say that this terrorist action was wrong PERIOD and then still discuss the history of the Chechnyan conflict and compare atrocities from all sides.

It's when one gets confused and thinks that the shooting in the back of children as they try to run away should be blamed on anyone other than the one who pulls the trigger where we see the logical disconnect.

Bingo. Now that I'm a topic of meta-discussion, it's nice to be understood.

Only people with tiny little sociopathic brains would need to conclude from whatever decision about the Chechen conflict that deliberately concentrating schoolchildren and blowing them up is somehow other than bad.

Only people with tiny little sociopathic brains would conclude that declaring this bad has anything at all with making some sort of overall, side-based conclusions about good and bad in the Chechen conflict.

A person with an intact brain and a sense of empathy could decide that the Chechens are in the right and have been totally oppressed, but still conclude that the actions of the hostage-takers was 100% bad. I think that anyone with a sense of empathy would have to conclude the latter.

Anybody who feels that they have to make a choice is a sociopathic moron. I've gotten over being shocked at how many there seem to be here. I still lament it.

Later we can talk about whether the Russian troops did the right thing. I hope that when we do, it is for the purpose of improving things.

But not right now. It's too near. There should be mourning.

 

[Skeptic]

I think that anyone with a sense of empathy would have to conclude the latter.

But that's just the point--they don't have a sense of empathy.

 

[epepke]

I think that anyone with a sense of empathy would have to conclude the latter.

But that's just the point--they don't have a sense of empathy.

Yep. And the word for that is "sociopath." Well, more generally Cluster B personality disorder, but who's counting? The Black Widows are probably borderlines.

 

[demon]

Let those who are genuine in their concerns for the Russia/Chechnya issue refrain from joining and supporting the hysterical, moral posterizing of the media chorus, who are at one and the same time supporting a spreading and escalation of the "war on terror" which many people of conscience now recognize as a gross and fatal global sham. But I will admit, it is difficult to find the right balance.
Nevertheless, as we saw with 9/11, 3000 + dead in America produced a climate wherein anyone who dared bring up the possibility that past US interventions might influence events were deemed "insensitive" and even dangerous to "national security". But these "dangerous" people, of course, were quite rightly concerned about the US response, which was, predictably, outrageously hasty and utterly contradictory to the most elementary principles of justice.

The point is, do you want Russia to escalate its already menacing and morally bankrupt policies against Chechnya? How long will the stupidity of conflating criminals or terrorist groups with entire populations continue? Don't support this conflation. It is better to risk being branded "insensitive" than lend any support to the expansion of state control and terrorism.

Frankly, I puke my biscuits when I read these voluminous high-moralizing poseur pundits in the press and on TV. These very voices are entirely mute when it comes to the horrors that western allied states inflict on civilians.
You know what? If you give me a choice between selective mourning and no mourning, I will grudgingly prefer no mourning. The former is far worse than the latter, because it contains the WHOLE crime of unbridled hypocrisy.
But noone has pointed a gun to my head and forced me between those two choices yet. So, I still stick to the third way. Which is a recognition of all crimes, coupled with a willingness and thirst for truth and context, so that the roots can be identified and dealt with. And, given the infinite hypocrisy of the powerful and the privileged, it is no surprise that the roots are a helluva lot closer to home than too many blinkered sheep realize.






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

 

[csense]

Orignally posted by Gem

If you want revenge against your oppressors, and you can't hurt the soldiers, the next unfortunate logical step is to attack their weak spot: the civilians.

No, no, no...don't blame it on logic. Logic infers no such thing, and it would make for a very tenuous argument to suggest that innocent civilians are part of the chain of cause and effect here.

It's been pointed out a few times that a correlative argument of revenge can be made by practically anyone, in which case it would render any given situation paradoxical and unanswerable, not to mention unresolvable.

That said, not only does your term oppressors beg the question, but your statement that you can't hurt the soldiers as a qualifier for your next logical step stretches credulity to say the least.

 

[epepke]

Bad, bad, bad epepke.

Florida--purchased by the US Government from Spain nice and legal (BTW, don't you think the Seminoles might have done a few "barbaric" things when we rolled over them?

And it was Spanish because, um, why exactly? I've been to St. Augustine. I've seen the cannon. I've seen the crossbows. They got used, ya know.

The Seminoles were originally from the area now known as Ohio and were resettled here.

Alaska--Purchased outright from the Russian Government in 1867 (remember Seward's folly?)

And it was Russian because, um, why exactly?

...would you care to define who you accusse of sociopathy and give examples from this thread?

There is a difference in condemning a horrific act and trying to see where the barbarous act was generated from (so that we may learn from tradgedy and perhaps avoid such terrors in the future). and just saying in was because "they" are barbarians.

Indeed there is a difference, and I respect people who emphasize that difference. I don't see that happening here. I see opportunism.

As for as who is and is not a sociopath, I haven't decided completely yet. I'm going to be very careful about making specific accusations.

 

[epepke]

You know what? If you give me a choice between selective mourning and no mourning, I will grudgingly prefer no mourning. The former is far worse than the latter, because it contains the WHOLE crime of unbridled hypocrisy.
But noone has pointed a gun to my head and forced me between those two choices yet. So, I still stick to the third way. Which is a recognition of all crimes, coupled with a willingness and thirst for truth and context, so that the roots can be identified and dealt with. And, given the infinite hypocrisy of the powerful and the privileged, it is no surprise that the roots are a helluva lot closer to home than too many blinkered sheep realize.

No.

That's pure ideological chest-beating BS. If you gave a dam about Chechnyans or other people, you could easily have posted articles drawing attention to them in articles when the events happened. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you not to.

Instead, you save up your little magic-markered histories for a thread like this one, where it gives you a chance to snot on someone else. That's the only value in such saving-up.

Without the snot and the thread-hijacking opportunities, you don't do it. Because spewing the snot is what you're interested in and all that you're interested in.

You yourself freely admit that what you care about is the "WHOLE crime of unbridled hypocrisy." It's far more important to you than murdered children. Dead children and other dead civilians seem to be just playing pieces for you.

You talk about "roots." Are the roots so important to you that you really think you're justified in snotting on human beings? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-year plan. Fun for everyone. And you feel so smart for thinking that the roots are so close to home. I'm sure your friends are impressed. And I'm sure that if you were dictator of the world, everything would be different. There would be great, wonderful plans that all were guaranteed to work. And those small, lost lives that you snot on now just don't compete, do they?

 

[demon]

"You yourself freely admitt that what you care about is the "WHOLE crime of unbridled hypocrisy." It's far more important to you than murdered children...."

Yes I do, and how you see that remark as signifying unconcern for murdered children I just don`t know. Maybe its because you are far too interested in spouting your professed moral outrage to realise that if we addressed the WHOLE crime we might see a lot less murdered children in the world...you know, including the ones that we don`t see pictures of. They exist you know, maybe not in your righteous world but they do but because they are forgotten victims that no one knows, you won`t look quite so saintly in decrying their deaths loudly and to no effect, as you have been doing with the Russian kids. I guess the populist cost benefit analysis tells you it`s not worth it.

I despise all crimes against humanity Mr Hot to Trot epepke (did I spell it right, wouldn`t want to upset you by getting it wrong), from whatever religion, race or continent they come from, but even more despicable is the lowlife who crawl out of their hiding holes, select their crimes like a fashion statement and climb up on the bodies of the children and air their prejudice and myopic bigotry as “sympathies” for the victims. It`s behaviour worthy of a ghoul...remind you of anyone?

So spare me your crap, go peddle it to those who know no better, you`ll enjoy the applause, I`m sure.

 

[epepke]

Yes I do, and how you see that remark as signifying unconcern for murdered children I just don`t know.

I agree. You don't.

Maybe its because you are far too interested in spouting your professed moral outrage to realise that if we addressed the WHOLE crime we might see a lot less murdered children in the world...you know, including the ones that we don`t see pictures of.

Well, you know. We'd all love to see the plan.

They exist you know, maybe not in your righteous world but they do but because they are forgotten victims that no one knows, you won`t look quite so saintly in decrying their deaths loudly and to no effect, as you have been doing with the Russian kids.

Whoopie! I, a frequent critic of morality who does not even profess to have one, am all of a sudden righteous and saintly! Gosh.

I despise all crimes against humanity Mr Hot to Trot epepke (did I spell it right, wouldn`t want to upset you by getting it wrong), from whatever religion, race or continent they come from, but even more despicable is the lowlife who crawl out of their hiding holes, select their crimes like a fashion statement and climb up on the bodies of the children and air their prejudice and myopic bigotry as “sympathies” for the victims. It`s behaviour worthy of a ghoul...remind you of anyone?

You despise all crimes against humanity so much you can't possibly be bothered to write about them in a way that doesn't involve distracting attention against other crimes against humanity.

That's just the facts.

You want to write something about Russia's treatment of Chechnya? Go ahead. I might even agree with you. Perhaps you can't imagine that, but that would be your problem.

No? You'd rather just spoo on threads? Well, that's your choice then. Don't act surprised when people see the meaning in the choice.

So spare me your crap, go peddle it to those who know no better, you`ll enjoy the applause, I`m sure.

Hah! Yes, I am certainly participating in this thread for applause. First the originator of the thread, with whom I agree, gets on me. And now you. It must be for the applause.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are all Russians

I am afraid I am not able to post cyrillic script here- if someone knows how, please PM me and I will post that phrase here.

It's doable using Unicode, but I don't know what the code points would be. Of course, one could do it as an image.

I am very familiar with the Chechen conflict, and have long sympathized with the plight of the Chechen people. In fact, I have some strange connections to Chechnya- the former President of Chechnya and a leader of the original uprising (since assassinated) General Dudayev, was stationed in my small town, head of Air Force there and I think I met him in my school a few times. We had many chechens stationed there, and so were very familiar with the situation. The resettlement of Chechens was also a subject for an influential book in the 80s, which gathered widespread sympathy for the way they were mistreated for decades. The atrocities commited by Russians are also well known.

However, I wish that for one or two days, people would not debate the whys, the politics and the Russian atrocities. Just like after 9/11 I wished a few days would pass before people start explaining why it is US's fault and how US would use it for its nefarious purposes. I am hoping people will have some respect for the thousands of people who just had their worst nightmare, for shattering of those lives. Also, for the lives that will be lost in the inevitable retaliation. Maybe I am a sentimental naive romantic, but I hoped for some peace, respect, grief and simple sadness. I think both the sides that say- Russia deserved it, Russia will use it- as well as people that say- see, Muslims are evil, kill some Chechens (and I am not necessarily referring to people's comments here) use this incident too quickly to prop up their preexisting views. For myself, I am just very sad today.

I'm probably not doing a very good job of expressing it, but I agree with this completely. I don't think that Russia has been completely fair to Chechnyans, and I think they have done some really bad things to them, but I don't think this in any way should impinge on the fact that a lot of people died who did not deserve to die.

Furthermore, this is of importance in and of itself. I think it is reasonble to be cool for a while.

Of course, as you point out, it didn't happen with 9/11 either. They talked about the chickens' coming home to roost, but I saw mostly vultures.