Moscow hostage seize

Moscow rebels 'threaten executions' starting Saturday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2361499.stm
What is the fault of innocent people gone to see theatre. There has to be a peaceful end for all this.

Other side of the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2359451.stm

Terrorists are everywhere and no one is immune to them. We can only hope and pray that all the hostages are freed and the terrorists are captured and punished.

I hope those mad men come to their senses and the whole thing ends peacefully, or at least without the deaths of any more innocents.

Calling them mad is not helpful. The actions of mad people tend to be isolated incidences, these people are driven by ideas not madness. I too hope that it ends without further bloodshed, but even if misguided or wrong they are probably not mad in the meaning of insane.

I heard that women-kamikaze were recruited from those who lost some relative (father, husband, brother...) in the war. Call them "mad" or whatever.
[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I hope those ideologically driven gentlemen come to the conclusion that violence is not always the proper means for effective conflict resolution, realize the potential folly of their present course of action, and resolve the situation peacefully.

Jason Menard: I hope those ideologically driven gentlemen come to the conclusion that violence is not always the proper means for effective conflict resolution, realize the potential folly of their present course of action, and resolve the situation peacefully.
I disagree that "violence is a part of conflict resolution". It seems to me with terrorism violence is the only way, sort of like a statement with point of no return. I tend to think it is a rather post-resolution action, after one (or both) side(s) think there is no more sense in discussions, because talks don't go anywhere (that reminds me of a few threads here at MD

)
There's something very "human nature" about making violent stands....

Oh, about this second link... "90% of Chechens in Moscow are businessman"... I hope you guys never learn what line of business they are in, and especially don't do business with them...because Sopranos will seem like a kiddie fairy tale in comparison...let's live it at that without starting any racial wars here...
Shura

Now a days talks as well as violence is not generating any results. I don't know how world community will resolve issues like Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya...
I think all the golden days are over. Now nobody can live in peace.

There will never cease to be people with grievances. If the world agrees to deny sympathy to any group that initiates and maintains the killing of random civilian adults and children as a goal of tactical operations -- even if no other effective tactics are available to them, then people with grievances will decide that such tactics are counterproductive and refrain from using them, even if they cannot otherwise achieve their goals.
On the other hand, if we "understand" and continue to sympathize with groups that embrace such tactics (even after the failure of negotiation and conventional warfare) -- then we have to expect these tactics to be adopted by every other aggrieved group that feels itself to be otherwise powerless. This will be true even with respect to groups whose grievances we do not consider legitimate (e.g. frustrated racists).

I agree with you. But the problem is some selfish people support and finance these groups for their political purposes.
It is like creating one monster to kill another monster. It goes on and never ends.

Well, to all you bitniks and peaceniks... It is beneficial to everyone to have wars of monsters. Kinda like natural selection, you snooze - you loose. If we hadn't that, one big bad monster would eventually take over (I don't know why, but it is always bad guys who run the show), and do a lot of bad, to other bad guys and bystanders. Sorry, I turned my 4-year-old language on...

I suggest you get used to live close to violence.
Sucks for most of us though...
Shura

To understand does not necessarily mean to support. It may be very useful to understand those you entirely disagree with.

i dont have time to research the history of all the former republics of the former soviet union, but i did find out that chechnya has been a part of russia for about 150 years. IMO chechnyan independence is not going to ever happen period. at this point i would call them seperatists not freedom fighters. im not pro imperialism or even pro government for that matter, just looking at it realistically. should germany grant independence to the dozen or so former independent states it is comprised of if they demand it? the american civil war shows that the US would not tolerate it.

I caught a snatch of National Public Radio during the crisis, and the reporter asked an "expert" (somebody with a British accent who was familiar with the region) whether he considered to takeover to be an act of terrorism.
He said no, explaining the current political conflict in the context of the Russian subjegation of Chechnya since the 19th century.
What a jerk! What does the context of the act in the current conflict and the context of the conflict in history have to do with whether a tactic employed by one of the parties is an example of terrorism?
That's like saying, "No, considering the history of the Viet Nam war, it would be wrong to describe the Viet Cong as having used guerilla tactics" or "Even though the police burnt the soles of the prisoner's feet during interrogation, considering the context of the crime it would be incorrect to consider it an example of torture."
The deliberate targeting of random civilians is terrorism regardless of one's grievance. The only possible justification is to be fighting an enemy that has already brought the conflict down to that level through to use of atrocity as stardard operating procedure (e.g. the Japanese and Germans during WWII).

Terrorism is always terrorism no matter how just the underlying cause.

I agree - Terrorism is terrorism.
Whatever the purpose or objective is, it never justifies taking hundreds of innocent people hostage including kids and terrify them. These people had explosives and mines laid all over the place.
Now I dont want to start another controversy by starting discussions about Russian evacuation procedures using chemical gas, but I think Russians were left with no option.

Originally posted by Ritu Kama:
I agree - Terrorism is terrorism.

Nobody is going to disagree with a statement like that, but does the statement really help? "A = A" does not tell me what the properties of A are.

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

The deliberate targeting of random civilians is terrorism regardless of one's grievance. The only possible justification is to be fighting an enemy that has already brought the conflict down to that level through to use of atrocity as stardard operating procedure (e.g. the Japanese and Germans during WWII).

Defining terrorism as "the deliberate targeting of random civilians...regardless of one's grievance" is too broad for my tastes; that sounds like just "breaking the law" to me: robbery, assault, grand theft, etc.
With terrorists, the grievance *is* a meaningful context. They are attacking their enemy because they refuse to accept the convetional notion that losing a war means the fight is over. Instead of saying "Live free or die," however, these people are saying "Live free or kill."
We may find it morally reprehensible, but this is what the Chechens and other militant groups are reduced to: trying to persuade their enemy that there will be no end to these pointless acts until some capitulation is reached. That persuasion comes in the form of trying to divide and demoralize the people by attacking those least capable of defending themselves.
In terrorism, the ends do justify the means. Reducing an enemy to the same level of misery (and tactics) as onesself isn't so much about "winning" as believing your enemy can't tolerate the same life you lead.
There's a point to all that: so long as the world never runs out of desperate people, our fight isn't so much with terrorists as with ourselves. How do we avoid becoming as filled with hate as the people who live and die by it?

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

With terrorists, the grievance *is* a meaningful context. They are attacking their enemy because they refuse to accept the convetional notion that losing a war means the fight is over. Instead of saying "Live free or die," however, these people are saying "Live free or kill."

All right, now there's a definition I can sink my teeth into!
I would argue that if we understand the grievance, it does not logically follow that we agree with either their way of fighting (terrorism) or even the correctness of their grievance. That assumption leads to fighting (see other threads).
To go along with the "Live Free or Die", some quotes by other Americans:

"I regret that I have but one life to give" - attributed to Nathan Hale, American Revolutionary
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - George S. Patton

Originally posted by Mark Milan:
"I regret that I have but one life to give" - attributed to Nathan Hale, American Revolutionary
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - George S. Patton

Nathan Hale was about to be hanged and was regretting that he was unable to help the cause of freedom any further. There is some doubt as to whether he actually said that or if it is apocryphal.
Patton was talking to Allied soldiers about killing enemy soldiers.

Jason had an excellent definition of "terrorism" based on international law. Maybe he will repost it.

From BBC News:
Nearly 650 of the rescued hostages are still being treated for gas poisoning in hospital, of whom 150 were in intensive care while 45 remained in a critical condition.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Nathan Hale was about to be hanged and was regretting that he was unable to help the cause of freedom any further. There is some doubt as to whether he actually said that or if it is apocryphal.
Patton was talking to Allied soldiers about killing enemy soldiers.

Yes, I did say "attributed to"...
WRT Patton's quote - it is sort of a counter-quote to Nathan Hale's (it was delivered just prior to D-Day). It is appropriate for terrorists because many terrorists feel that they are soldiers fighting a just battle. It is left as an excercise for the reader to read the rest of Patton's speech. If I recall, his nickname was "Blood and Guts" - and rightly so...

By Patton:

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. ALL REAL Americans, love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers . . . Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans
have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful
to Americans.
Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post, don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.
Now we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. You know . . . My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. My God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel. Now some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty.
The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood, shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friends face, you'll know what to do. Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything, we'll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose.
Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War Two?" You won't have to say, "Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana." Alright now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. Oh! . . . I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere.
That's all."

Compare this to the speech of Henry V before Agincourt (according to Shakespeare). Henry was more eloquent (who wouldn't be with Shakespeare as your speech writer) but they both said almost the same thing.
[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[QB]By Patton:

Compare this to the speech of Henry V before Agincourt (according to Shakespeare). Henry was more eloquent (who wouldn't be with Shakespeare as your speech writer) but they both said almost the same thing.
[QB]

Thomas;
I said "It is left as an excercise for the reader...", not student. Although I must say, your juxtaposition of Patton's speech against Shakespeare's "We Happy Few" Saint Crispin's speech deserves at least a gold star...

I have to point out that both US and Russia took on an unspoke rule of "not negotiating with terrorists". Which makes sense.
Chechnya is one of the few muslim territories of former Soviet Union (and it was not even a republic then!).
Here's kinda incomplete list of Islamic territories (peoples) in Russia:
Kazan and Crimean Tartars and the Bashkir, Caucasian Adyg, Kazakh, Uzbek, Kirghiz, Turkmen, and Tajik peoples (Sunni); Chechen, Kurdish, and Talysh peoples, as well as some of the inhabitants of Mountain Daghestan (Sufi); Azerbaijanians, Tats, and some Kurds and Tajiks (Shi�ite); Ismailites in Tajikistan; Sufi Nakshbandi, Kadiri and Yasavi in parts of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Now, those who are familiar with acts of terrorism/extreme violence in Russia, could probably remember these: Kazan Mafia, Chechnya, problem swith Kurds, and Azerbaijanian Mafia (Baku, Caspian Sea oil). Some of the rest of them are too small for any kind of criminal organization...
On second thought, this is also too far fetched to link terrorism and Islam. Remember St.Peterburg's criminal group? Now, try to remember where Putin is from....
Shura