Getting Ugly in Russia

[jaguar]

there is black and white in the world Jaguar. specifically targeting innocent women and children is wrong. end of story. no matter how sympathetic to a cause you may be you have to admit that.

Thankyou for illustrating, perfectly, my point. Both in moral absolutism and situational ignorance for that matter.

Are things really that straightforward for you? When do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? When total war is waged on you at what point are you obliged or forced to wage total war in return?

It's interesting, in the same breath, you seem to suggest that actions such as

"Aset Asimova" (not the woman's real name), a 43-year-old widow, told Human Rights Watch that she was at home with her eight-year-old son when drunken soldiers came in early February. Three of them took her into a separate room while others looted the house. "They tore my dress. They asked me where the men were, they asked me how long I had been without a husband." The soldiers then told her to undress, and when she fought them off they beat her with the butts of their rifles, and raped her. "I don't know how many of them raped me. I lost consciousness, when it was happening. When I came to, they were pouring water on me … then they left."

are just routine efforts to keep the provinces under control and justifiable.

Maybe if

The forensic examiner concluded that Kungaeva was beaten, anally and vaginally penetrated by a hard object, and strangled at about 3:00 a.m.4 The report cited marks on her neck, the condition of her blood vessels, the tone of her skin, and the condition of her lungs. It found that other injuries such as bruising found on her face, her neck, her right eye, and her left breast were inflicted by a blow with a "blunt, hard object of limited surface,"

had happened to your sister, then your mother, you might start feeling differently about the wall of indifference eminating from moscow and the innocence of those who did nothing to stop or supported these actions in their name.

I'm not trying to justify this, I'm simply trying to give you a modicum of understanding of what is going on beyond simplistic moralisms for middle class americans.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jaguar

It's interesting, in the same breath, you seem to suggest that actions such as

are just routine efforts to keep the provinces under control and justifiable.

please point out to me in my words where i said that was justifiable.

Thankyou for illustrating, perfectly, my point. Both in moral absolutism and situational ignorance for that matter.

do you operate soley as an intellectual to the point that you don't see that no matter what the situation is, targeting children is wrong - no matter who is doing it. you seem to be missing the fact that i am not condoning russia's behavior. i didn't say Russians are allowed to do XYZ but Chechens are not. i said anyone who targets innocent (not carrying weapons) civilians is filth. it doesn't matter their ideology.

had happened to your sister, then your mother, you might start feeling differently about the wall of indifference eminating from moscow and the innocence of those who did nothing to stop or supported these actions in their name.

yes i would feel more strongly about the situation but the entire world wouldn't devolve into shades of gray. there are some things that are just wrong no matter the context. targeting innocent women and children because you can't seem to defeat the military is wrong. end of story. it is the action of a bully no matter whether they are russian or chechen.

I'm not trying to justify this, I'm simply trying to give you a modicum of understanding of what is going on beyond simplistic moralisms for middle class americans.

this is not about "simplistic moralisms". this is about one of the few absolutes that exist in our world. specific targeting of women and children to make a political point is wrong. you can talk about history, shades of gray, and moralism all you want - some things are just wrong.

Are things really that straightforward for you? When do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? When total war is waged on you at what point are you obliged or forced to wage total war in return?

wouldn't the needs of the many be for innocent people to quit blowing up while shopping? how many people benefit from that?

and from my limited understanding of the situation i don't think the russians were bored one day and invaded for the hell of it. didn't they send troops because of an attempt to secede from their nation?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

didn't [Russia] send troops because of an attempt to secede from their nation?

Ignoring for a moment the techniques being used, do they have a right to independence from Russia?

The American revolution was all about gaining independence from England. Did we have a right to our independence, or were we wrong then? The Confederacy tried to gain its independence from the USA. They failed, but did they have a right to be free?

[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.

You seem to expect little or no restraint on the part of a state which imposes it's will on another state or which denies the cessation of a portion of what it considers to be it's own. Yet you expect a greater level of restraint on the part of a brutalised people in their attempts to rid themselves of an oppressor.

[russotto]

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.

[bluesdave]

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.

[jaguar]

No, that's the point. You don't have a damn clue. It's complex, very and there is both the confusing and complicated movements since the collapse of the USSR and a long and interesting history before that as well.

While I can and do totally logic-only situational analysis this is more a case of putting yourself in the shoes of a mad as hell chechen mother or daughter that's seen everyone around her murdered brutally, hell hath no fury and all that. I'm not a fan of moral relativism and I don't want to let this get near metaethics but I don't feel you can simplify a situation this messy down to something so simple. You end up invading countries based on what your advisors feed you if you think like that. As far as I'm concerned moral absolutes are as much a red herring as the sacred nature of human life. Even if something is black in the middle it'll probably be grey around the edges.

Maybe they wouldn't be blown up while shopping if other people weren't being blown up while shopping as well. Bringing the flight to the enemy isn't exactly a new tactic.

[jaguar]

This is biased and fairly poor but the best canned history I can find without listing an ISBN.
A little taste

[DanaC]

Even if something is black in the middle it'll probably be grey around the edges.

That's going on my list of all time favourite quotes

[Undertoad]

Does anyone remember how India resisted occupation?

[jaguar]

The first palestinian intafada used similar tactics, there are groups that protest nonviolently against the barrier daily, often met by violent force by the IDF. Don't see that on FOX do you?

[Undertoad]

so you're saying it doesn't work?

[DanaC]

"Does anyone remember how India resisted occupation?"

India resisted or complied with occupation in various ways at various times. Ghandi and his followers were one strand of that, a non violent strand. The Chechens have non violent strands to their resistance also.

[jaguar]

Depends on the circumstances. One could say 'not in this day and age', but then you'd be overlooking the Rose Revolution in Georgia but it's rare that it works and requires certain conditions which don't seem to be that common. Certainly doesn't work in the middle of a conflict that is already well established.

[DanaC]

The very fact we all know so little about a conflict which has been raging for the best part of a decade shows how much interest the world has in hearing the Chechens. Why would peaceful resistance on their part make us more inclined to help them?