A meme tht pops up from time to time is ‘Have you ever wondered why Muslim terrorists don’t kidnap Russians??’. This sounds like Right-wing propaganda, so I did a quick search and found this page The url is upi dot com. I noticed a couple of things:
[ul][li]They spelled ‘Muslim’ as ‘Moslem’[/li][li]There are no names[/ul][/li]I wondered how the KGB knew who the terrorists were, and how they tracked down their families. Since the Jerusalem Post was cited, I added that to my search terms. Only two links were returned. The one from WikiVisually says:
Major parts of my family have been involved in security and intelligence at various times; This is NOT actual confirmation, but the rumors passing 'round amongst the ‘sneaky pete’ crew that I know square substantially with this story.
Didn’t say it was. But it’s a different spelling from usual. Maybe not 30 years ago, but it sticks out now because every recent instance of that spelling that I’ve seen has been on signs carried by Tea Party types.
Sadly, I wouldn’t put it past the KGB morally; however it just feels like propaganda — the same type of salacious horror as was used against the nazis, the Americans ( in places ), and marxist regimes and movements everywhere. And even against banditos.
Also, separately, if he was immediately killed, the castration wouldn’t matter to him afterwards; and indeed they could just as well simply kill him without grand guignol.
I can’t imagine ISIS with their own torturing practices would be that scared by this tactics by the Russians.
I have no idea if the story is true, but apparently the Russians abandoned the tactic. Muslim terrorists, if we’re lumping them all together, still decided to take about 850 Russian hostages in a Moscow theater in 2002. So, even if the incident happened as described in 1986, it’s not accurate that it prevented future attacks.
ETA: Although I suppose you could draw a distinction between kidnapping and taking hostages in a public place and maybe make the meme technically true.
As above, I remember reading the story in the mainstream press back when it is supposed to have happened. Of course it wasn’t a news story, rather an analysis piece, and it didn’t provide any sources. Whether it is true or not, it isn’t a recent invention, nor a US centric one.
I have heard variations of the story with several different protagonists/antagonists. Typically the moral the storyteller wanted to give was “look xyz really knows how to deal with <enemy of the day>, unlike us, who are too soft for our own good”.
I don’t doubt that intelligence services world over have at times done some pretty brutal things to an individual, in retaliation for some perceived slight. I don’t think anyone truly believes that a policy of brutality is anything but extremely counterproductive.