What a guy is doing is often not so interesting as why he his doing it. It seems to me terrorists is the more informative term, since hostage taking (and torture and rape and murder) is simply the tools they choose to achieve their real intentions: to terrorise. In that light hostage-takers seem to be the more political term since it intentionally downplays and hides the real objectives of the terrorists.
Are they still being called hostage takes after it has been revealed how they’re also torturers, rapist and murderers?
IMO, and I suggest as a straight factual matter, “terrorist” is a less informative term to use than “hostage taker”. There is still not a gererally accepted definition of what constutes a “terrorist act”. This is not my field, but I attended an academic conference on this in the mid 80’s. If left entirely to their own devices, a group of academics MIGHT come up with a consensus definition. but when they need they buy-in of the international diplomatic community on the definition, the task becomes impossible.
At the time, the most recent international events under discussion were the US air raid on Libya in retalition for a German disco bombing, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed… er, about 250?, and a whole series of actions by the US backed Contras – blowing up factories and railways, mining harbors, etc.
Try coming up with a definition that includes the disco bombing and the barracks bombing, but doesn’t include the airstrike or ANYTHING the Contras did.
The reason terrorism can’t be defined is because nation-states, the United Staes included. are unwilling to unreservedly forswear all the tactics and tools that would need be included in the definition, yet cannot allow themselves to be branded as endorsing “terrorism”. Were the Taliban “terrorists” when they were fighting the Russians and the US was arming them?
The goal of “terrorists” is not to terrorize. The goal of terrorists is to force political change by making the consequences on not changing terribly expensive.
The Chechens wanted the Russians out and, after horribly bitter fighting got the Russians to pull part way out. Then a separate group launches an attack without their approval. The Chechens have little organized military and no money, so, instead of cooperating with the Chechens, the Russians simply re-invade the country–and in your view it is the Chechens’ fault because they did not “deserve” independence, simply because fighting off the world’s second largest army had destroyed their wealth.
The Russians could have agreed to work with the Chechens to bring the rebels under control. Instead they sent their pillaging army back into Chechnya–and failed, themselves, to bring the rebels under control, indicating that Russia does not deserve its independence.
An interesting perspective, indeed.
(And, really, there is no purpose in going with your meaning, here: the Russians did everything they could, short of not physically leaving, to destroy Chechnya during your so-called “de-facto independence.”)
Boy, oh boy, oh boy… Rossia-mama and Putin-papa are sure getting it in the chops here. Are we talking about the same Russia whose agreement was necessary to make Iraq invasion legitimate? Not to worry, Kerry will arrange that.
The point is trying to understand what took place and why. Nord Ossetia is a Christian area in a predominantly Moslem Caucasus, the terrorists were Moslem the victims Christians. As for why the terrorists chose that particular school and republic remain to be found out. In any case, you don’t find it in the least important for the understanding of what took place there, to know that the terrorists most likely were, at least partially, driven by a hysterical Islamic Fundamentalist rage? I’d say the whole damn shebang is damn near incomprehensible without.
Perhaps so. But merely referring to them as “hostage taker” seems to me like referring to an armed bank robber as a gunman. Not strictly wrong, but beside the point really. At least terrorists, if its precise definition is somewhat hazy, capture more of actually took place.
Incidentally I just stumbled across this article, They’re Terrorists - Not Activists. Not particular good, but it seem to me something deeply troubling, Orwellian even, if the BBC goes back in old articles on archive to edit out offending words no longer considered acceptable – if that’s what caused the search engine snafu.
I find it striking the various awful home movies and pictures being released taken by the terrorists themselves. From Nazi exterminators filming themselves in front of murdered Jewish children to Islamic snuff movies in Iraq and even the Abu Grabhi debacle. What is it about the human psyche that insists on immortalising own barbaric deeds?
If anyone should be interested money to help the victims at the school can be wired to the following account: BENEFICIARY/ACC.: RELIEF FUND FOR VICTIMS OF TERRACT IN BESLAN
ACC. # 40911840200000000015
INTERMEDIARY: OJSCB “AVTOBANK-NIKOIL”
L19048, EFREMOVA STR.8, MOSCOW, RUSSIA S.W.I.F.T. CODE: AVTBRUMM
CORRESPONDENT ACC: /USD/ ACC. # 30109840000011001260 AT AVTOBANK-NIKOIL
BANK OF BENEFICIARY: JSC “BANK OF REGION DEVELOPMENT”
VLADIKAVKAZ, RUSSIA NON SWIFT BIC CODE: REDVRU21
why is this not the harbinger of “Russia, the failed state” (sequel to "The USSR, Failed Empire…)?
Chechnya was forcibly added to the then russian empire around the 1850’s, and was never really “pacified”(unless you count the time all the chechens were deported to siberia and replaced with russians for most of Stalin’s premiership).
Why is that border sacred?
(of course, if 1850 is close enough in time to re-examine the transfer of sovereignty without benefit of popular assent, I submit for your approval Hawaii, and New Mexico–but we are not giving back california.)
If it is, prepare to withess a few Hiroshimas very soon. But enough tall talk.
NPR reported that Putin finally said something sensible, admitting that first Chechen war was a mistake on the part of Russia. Perhaps it will lead to compromise with Chechen population, and separation and liquidation of committed terrorists. At least, there still is a distant chance for that happening…
What a charming idea. Invite tomndebb over, have some wine, relax on the couch and watch this cozy video. I know some people have the hots for terrorists. This video might be jùst the thing. Enjoy.
[thank you, Rune for the addresses as to where some decent folks can actually help people, instead of lamenting over despicable crooks.
Despite your claims, I have seen no support for the terrorists in this thread. However, it seems that you will have no problem supporting mass murder as long as it is carried out under the auspices of “war” (even if only one side has the capacity to wage “war”). I am not sure why it is better to kill chlidren with aerial bombs than with guns, but I suppose that such cognitive dissonance is comfortable for you.
A pregnant mother and her four small children are shot at close range on a deserted road outside a settlement in Gaza. There’s the support that goes: “Heroic resistance warriors fighting the just cause against the evil Zionistic entity!” And then there’s the other kind that goes: “Yes it’s all very sad and unfortunate but how should the Palestinians else fight back? They don’t have Apache helicopters and tanks. And just look at what the Israelis have done! If there were no settlements there would be no terror, it’s really the Israelis fault”
There’s such a thing as unreserved condemnation and I think this Chechen terrorist action is of such awful nature it deserves a such without a “but” tagged to the end.
I have no doubt Eva Luna in absolutely no way support the terrorists but when the torture, rape and murder of small children is described as “fight back” I consider that as a mark of acceptance and tacit approval and support of terror.
And yet I have seen no condemnation for those same actions by the Russian soldiers by those who are trying to claim that the only terrorists we need condemn are those at the Beslan school. (In fact, at this point, the only people who have been accused of rape are the Russian soldiers.)
This thread is about a specific event: the Beslan terror attack. Perhaps there’s another thread detailing a likewise horrible event perpetrated by Russian forces you want me to look at?
The problem arises when those atrocities in that school are tried to be reasoned away as understandable or inevitable consequences of some other events happening at another time. Perhaps one can trace back some steps, where one led to another that led to Beslan – but nothing was inevitable and, most important, there’s no moral connection between this even and any other. Not Putin, not Russian soldiers in Chechnya, nobody, absolutely nobody, are to blame for what happened in that school – but the terrorists themselves.
I do not condemn the Chechens’ struggle for independence (or the Russians’ struggle to keep their country intact) I condemn the way it is being pursued.
Now look at the part where the “18-month-old baby had been repeatedly stabbed by a black-clad terrorist who had run out of ammunition” or the Sophie’s choice of that young mother forced to choose between her young son and baby girl and tell me again this is “fight back”.
And the point of understanding or inevitability is raised when people who are quite justified in condemning the 35 monsters at Beslan begin talking about the “justification” of Putin’s future actions or begin trying to portray the Russian re-invasion of Chechnya as somehow “justified” because some small splinter group of terrorists happened to have Chechen associations.
The very second post in this thread made a not-so-veiled attempt to lay the blame on Muslims. Amid the posters who argued for the use of “terrorist” in the media, several made rather sweeping claims about “Chechens” implying that the overall Chechen uprising is unjustified and that this incident was simply an example of Chechen behavior.
Once that sort of rhetoric is brought into play, it is incumbent on people who support the concept of the Straight Dope to not leave such assertions unchallenged.
I have not applied any mitigating logic to the Beslan atrocity. However, if you feel that noting Russian atrocities are out of bounds for this thread, then you should be equally quick to condemn generalizations about Chechens or Muslims. This was an act by specific individuals whose exact ties to any other group have not yet been made claer. We do not yet know exactly who organized this, but if the Russian authorities are correct that it was mostly outsiders, then the condemnation of “Chechens” is doubly wrong.
But any country has legitimate rights to defend itself (and ensure territorial integrity). Undoubtedly the Russian troops are guilty of many crimes in Chechnya too, but that does not negate the fact that, even were Chechnya an international recognised independent country, Russia would still have been quite within her rights to defend herself against future attacks by Chechens by invading. What is wrong is not Russia’s “invasion” of Chechnya but the way it was conducted.
The second post in this thread was about the media’s, correct or not, failure to report the terrorists were Muslims. A grave error indeed if true, since the whole thing is near incomprehensible without the religious angle. I see no attempt to blame all Muslims.
Naturally this can not be blamed on all Chechens (I see even some of the terrorists were against it when they realised it were children they were murdering – much like some of the terrorists in 9/11 I think) or Moslems. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong in noting Russian atrocities when one wants to learn what went on in that little squirming excuse for a brain those terrorists had. The problem is arguing the Russians are wholly or partly to blame for the terrorists’ action. They are not. I consider a statement of “unsurprising fight-back” to be of the latter, perhaps you do not.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time at the moment to put in the kind of comprehensive response that I would like at this moment, but I can’t let this one stand.
Others, myself included, have already stated that attacks such as Beslan are quite predictable, given what the Chechens have been through…not excusable or justifiable, but * predictable. * If you can’t tell the difference between those concepts, then I don’t know how to help you.
If you were a Chechen, and you had seen your home blown to smithereens, your family and friends and neighbors killed and/or made into refugees, and pretty much nobody else in the world giving a damn, let alone doing anything constructive to remedy the situation, because it’s a “Russian internal affair,” what would you do? Can you honestly say you wouldn’t do anything more extreme than write a letter to the editor, provided there was even a functional newspaper left in your homeland?
What do you suggest the Chechens do, take Putin to court?
Maybe I should set up a nice, cozy nook for you and Brutus, and maybe a couple of others, in the Pit, where you can toss back a few vodka shots to wash down some nice salo (Russian/Ukrainian-style chunks of pork fat, a common vodka chaser in that neck of the woods) and chuckle over the footage of post-bombing Grozny, while cleaning out your Kalashnikovs for the next round. Wouldn’t want that shooting of unarmed civilians to be inefficient, now would we?
Well, it will be a cold day in Hell before I am in charge of Russia, but I would consider criminal prosecution of the specific individuals involved to be an appropriate response, rather than rape and torture and ransoming corpses and ethnic cleansing and genocide and aerial bombing of residential areas. But apparently that’s my style, not yours.
You call that ‘style’ the thing you have? We call that something else here.
No, sweetie.
No matter what you’ll think next of, in your love-lost thoughts: No excuses for deliberately slaughtering babies, deliberately shooting children in the back.
Sorry.
No can do.
No condoning, no ‘but’, no excuses.