Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DanaC
It is interesting to me that the same people who denounce violent attacks on the innocent by non state sponsored group are the same people who will uphold the rights of the state to act to whatever degree of brutality is deemed necessary for the achievement of it's goals.
|
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.