Dana and Jag, there are some underlying assumptions to your arguments that I’m not prepared to grant without much better substantiation.

1) That there exists a context which justifies the targeted killing of children. You argue that we don’t understand the complexity of the political realities which has borne out these actions, but that presumes that there is some conflation of political, economic, or social circumstances which makes this action not only understandable, but permissible. If so, then the concept of moral behavior has lost any meaning. “Treat other people as an end in themselves, never as a means to an end.”

2) That only those persons who have existed within such a context are capable of evaluating the moral permissibility of their actions. You argue that because we have not lived through what they have lived through, we cannot possibly make moral evaluations of their ensuing actions. I reject this wholesale. Is the father whose daughter was raped in the best position to evaluate the moral permissibility of his retaliatory actions? Is the husband whose wife committed adultery the best judge of the morality of her actions? Those who have skin in the game are not the ones I want making the rules. It is the outside observer who is best able to make moral evaluations about a given action.

Just my $.02

-sm

You're talking about moral validity, I'm talking about comprehension of mentality.

The pictures coming out on this are just horrifying. The fear in the kids' faces. It's unreal.

yeah, i just don't see how the black widows (see i can say it) can gain anything but contempt from this.
children

CNN's report

Well they certainly lost a great deal of support in Chechnya itself.

I'll be interested to see where these arabs are from, I bet the mainstream chechen rebel forces are fucking pissed off about this, is hurts their rep and validates putin's rants about links to islamic terrorism. 200 dead....I didn't expect it to end that badly, sounds like the raid was a total FUBAR

Appalling.

Saudia.. holes?

When the Dayton Accords made the mujahidin presence in Bosnia politically uncomfortable, several hundred of the 'Afghans' began transferring to Chechnya in late 1995.

Photos of destruction in Chechnya on a World Affairs Board thread.


Source of the pics Eric Bouvet.

Wow. Thanks Griff, they are fascinating. That's destruction on a pretty total scale.

So you're saying that you condone violent attacks on the innocent by a non state-sponsored group? You've certainly implied it strongly enough.

What you don't seem to get is that

1) Terrorism, as a tactic used by the weaker against the stronger, cannot achieve positive goals for the weaker. If all the weaker cares about is making the stronger suffer, they can do that. But they can't get the stronger to do as they demand because

2) A nation simply cannot afford to give in to terrorist tactics such as hostage taking. That applies to the United States, Russia, and any other nation who doesn't want hostage-takers popping up all over the place when anyone has any grievance. Rewarding such tactics creates the incentives for more of the same. The US authorities tend to be more subtle about it, "negotiating" the other side to death until they surrender or to buy time to send a force in, the Russians are characteristicly direct and ruthless, but neither will allow a hostage taker to get what he wants.

and

3) It doesn't really matter what the Russians have done, are doing, or will do in Chechnya. By taking a school hostage, the Chechens have set themselves up as the bad guys. If they were looking for outside support, this was a real good way to assure they won't get it.

Jag, at what what point did I state unconditional suppport for the Russian authorities, and complete lack of sympathy for Chechnya? To read your reply to my post this must have been the case. I appreciate that you and Dana have great empathy for the Chechens. I do too, and I think I made it clear that I condem Russia's past actions. I was putting forward the opinion that long term they (Chechnya), cannot win by violent means, and like it or not, their only hope is to accept that. I do not back down from this view one bit, and your vitriolic, personal attack is hardly going to alter my opinion.

I suspect that the events in Beslan that followed the timing of your post might have taken some of the wind out of your sails.

Theres an excellent article on the BBCNews website discussing the possible identity of the hostagetakers. It's a very confused picture. Everyone is giving different information

Analysis

And also, a selection of comments from Russian Newspapers
Russian Press

This is too complex a situation to be comprehended and dealt with in comic book terms. (unless you were being ironic in which case my apologies) Good and bad may play a part in politics but only that, a part. Pragmatism is the politician's greatest ally. War and politics are intimately entwined and the only way to see an end this deadly embrace is to engage in realpolitik. Each side has a grievance ( many grievances ) with another. There are many sides. There are many factors all of which have led to the situation as it stands at this hour and day. What I have been arguing for is not acceptance of the horror of child slaughter, but just an attempt by any who take an interest to gain a deeper understanding of the various forces and motivations involved on all sides of the various struggles for independance which are boiling up in and around Russia.

Specifically my objection was to the desire by many to boil this down to good guys and bad guys and leave it at that.

And as for gaining outside support. I very much doubt that was part of the plan. Making a huge statement to the Russian people is more likely the rationale.

The net result is damn ugly, 300 or so dead, about half kids, we won't have a final toll for a while yet and it sounds like the area is still a bit of a warzone. Interesting that this was pre-planned with the weaponry installed during the summer, this was a well prepped operation. My gut feeling is that Islamic fundie elements have infiltrated and perverted the more radical elements of the chechen rebels but it's hard to be sure yet.

Take the wind out of my sails? Don't see why. Yes, a whole bunch of kids died, it's fucking awful but the point remains. Particularly about your pack of understanding. Firstly, you assume that all groups are working together. It's fairly clear they are not, there are various factions that use differing methods and it wouldn't be the first time they've fought each other, even if one wanted to call a ceasefire, who says the other would. Same problem was a right pain in the ass in Northern Ireland with career thugs like the 'Real IRA'.

Secondly, you assume that they have something to gain from doing so, I doubt they feel the same way, why on earth should they capitulate to drunk violent Russian occupation that will being no real peace or stability to the country anyway?

Thirdly, you seem to think that armed resistance never helps. Interesting, sadly not supported by history. Nelson Mandella was once a terrorist, hell, Israel might never have existed unless their terrorists blew up the King David hotel, the IRA gained political ground, the Communists are about to take over Nepal (strangely not making the news). The long and short is that force works. This appears to be a different breed of operation piggybacking on the chechen cause but it will still bring some attention to a conflict that has fallen on dead ears and as Russia eyes NATO, might force them to clean up their act there in the long term.

I'm in the middle of writing a Manifesto based on this article I found this morning on MSNBC. The article begins as follows:

Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism, a humiliating and painful truth that must be acknowledged, a prominent Arab writer and television executive wrote Saturday, as Middle East media and officials expressed horror at the bloody rebel siege of a Russian school.

nice article. glad to see someone calling it like it is.

“You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims,”

That recognition is a bright, shining light at the end of the tunnel! Good catch Syc.

nice sig line UT

Interesting article, I should keep more an an eye on arab news and see what the response is like. Wish you could get Al Jazeera in English already.

They have an English version of their website.

I can’t believe they let some of the perpetrators escape. The first thing they should have done, the very first, was to surround the building. Cover all the exits, even before they’re clear on what’s happening. :headshake

From what I gather this is a huge complex and they were still setting up for a seige.

Good article here
Maps and details here

Al Jazeera is supposed to be coming to Britain soon

If taking school kids hostage and killing some of them isn't bad, what is? The fact that shades of gray exist doesn't banish black and white.

I think the issue here is considering motivation and mindset. I was just explaining to a friend of mine (a very, "Semper fi! Do or die! Gung ho! Gung ho! Gung ho!"* kind of guy) that what terrorists do is wrong, absolutely. There are no shades of gray about killing civilians. However, if you want terrorism to stop, or at least slow down, the answer isn't the threat of retaliatory action. These people aren't afraid to die, hell, the Muslims look forward to it. What will stop them is getting into the mindset of your average terrorist, figuring out their motivation and taking that away. If you enter into a spiral where each side is thinking, "Well, we'll kill them because they killed us," the killing will never stop. However, if you genuinely work toward the resolution of a problem (say, Chechen independence or us getting the fuck out of the middle east, for example), you can stop the hatred. It won't be an instantaneous swords-to-plowshares transformation, but it will happen. The vast majority of terrorists are fighting because they've lost a family member or a close friend or a home or a life in the war that they are now participating in. If we stop killing mothers, their sons will stop turning into terrorists.

*The first person to tell me what movie this line is from gets a gold star for the day.

I got into a loooooong discussion about this the other day. For some people there is a "gray area" about killing civilians--it's just a part of war, and is inevitable. It's sad, but they don't necessarily lose any sleep over it. For me, I fail to see how the US dropping a bomb in Iraq and killing women and children is all that different from what the Chechens did.

who is the intended target? if civilians are killed because a combat target has chosen to surround itself with civilians (i.e. putting women and children in front of troops firing their weapons, or hiding munitions inside schools and hospitals) then unfortunately civilian casualties are unavoidable. that is very different than avoiding military targets in favor of targeting the weak and undefended.

It still comes down to the fact that the civilians have nothing to do with whatever "conflict" is going on. Do you think the civilians are lining up to part of this? Civilian casualties are completely unavoidable if unecessary, unsupported and uncalled for wars are AVOIDED instead of EMBRACED.

Sounds logical in theory but when you add religeous zealots into the mix, logic goes out the window. When you have a cleric or nutjob, with an agenda, and that person is in a position of/to influence kids, the recruiting will continue. Teenagers are restless and rebellious the world over. ;)

Having much experience with restless, rebellious teens (back when I had faith in humanity, I was a Utopian Anarchist) I can tell you that it is very, very hard to incite organized violence. The religious zealots will create movements, and there will be some followers, but history shows the common thread that violent groups are spawned by violent conditions. For a globe-spanning, resilient terrorist network to form, there must be an incredible number of people working actively (actually doing the work) or passively (providing monetary and other resources), and removing the violence that drives these people will, if not completely eliminate, then will at least take a huge bite out of the resources of these extremists. Look at the group we're dealing with in this thread, the Black Widows. Black <b><i><u>WIDOWS!!!!</b></i></u>. Victims of violence turning to violence.

It turns out the "Black Widows" appear to be in a minor supporting role in this mess, unlike the airline crashs. I don't think the teens have to be pissed, just nothing to do and nothing to lose. :)

Alphageek, you make a lot of sense.

Bruce, fair point on the rebellious nature of teenagers.

And yet, Alph, 9/11 created a lot of American WIDOWS!! a few of whom were actually against the Iraq war. What's up with that??

David Warren points out: Arabs and internationals. Put that in your root causes computer and see what it comes up with. Here's what Warren comes up with:

Good for you. I never had the time or the money to be a Utopian Anarchist.

Girl, you crack me up! :biggrin:

Full Metal Jacket.

Although it's kind of a standard Marine thing to say ...

Excuse me for interceding on his question, but he's not online at the moment and I can't go back to sleep.

If I had to guess, the core reason is that they had lost their husbands and were loathe to lose their sons/daughters as well. Personally, I would like to think that they understood that the murdering fuckstick of an Arab that the Iraq War was directed against was not the one that killed their husbands, but I freely admit that the latter is most likely secondary to the former.