Heartland

Have been following the school siege in southern Russia (albeit vaguely) and the related bombings of Russian airlines and a suicide attack in Moscow. Those familiar with my enthusiasm for Russia will doubtless guess why, the rest of you can catch up!

Anyway, I was thinking about terrorism in general, and what it can and cannot achieve.

It struck me thus: every regime faced with a terror threat begins by taking a "no compromise" line. South Africa vowed to remain strong in the face of "sabotage" by the ANC in the early years of the struggle against apartheid. The British government would never "sit down with the men of violence" in Northern Ireland, until they sat down with the IRA instead. Putin initially responded to Chechen separatism by sending the Russian army to flatten Grozny. He sent troops in to storm a similar siege at a Moscow theatre two years ago, but has now (at the time of writing) insisted that force will not be used to liberate the school (common sense? this is a Russian leader we're talking about. Let's not get too excited yet). In Spain a terrorist bombing arguably swung a parliamentary election last year.

In all these cases, over time and through much bloodshed, the terrorists have steadily eroded the will of the authorities to fight fire with fire. Or so it seems (political subtleties may be overlooked, beer is being consumed, flames are anticipated by morning).

So, where does this leave our dearly beloved "war on terror"? And what does that mean for liberal, tolerant societies now and in the future? Does the evidence of history suggest that a rise in fundamentalist Islamic terrorism (irrespective of the causes) will ultimately succeed in heralding a dark age for civil liberties across the Arab/Islamic worlds? And what will its impact be in the West?

Should we be a lot more scared than we really are? Or is this a bit too deep to be thinking about?

Open-ended questions. Little of the above represents a coherently-held point of view. Discuss, using diagrams where appropriate.

The whole concept of a "War on Terror" is as ridiculous as a "War on Self-Pity" or any other emotion. I know it's just a phrase, but these slogans are dangerous.

As proved by the situation in Northern Ireland, terrorism (or freedom fighters, depending on your POV) can only be combated by actually looking at the situation which caused the upsurge in violence and negotiating.

I know it doesn't make for good slogans or nationalistic fist-beating, but there are those of us who long for politics which ascend the school playground mentality and actually deal with problems in an adult manner.

it's 'My Dad Is Bigger Than Yours' taken to the nth degree
and I feel force proves nothing there's always a bigger Dad

"War On Terror" is it possible to go to war on a Noun?

How about an Egg? - Go To War On An Egg! - Lots of protein

I'm personally spearheading the War on Triteness. Any country found harbouring triteness will be bombed forthwith.

Because my dad's bigger than your dad.

The "War On Terror(ism)" is very much like the "War On Drugs". In that it would be more accurate to rename them the "War On Some Terror(ism)" and the "War On Some Drugs".

The terrorists are winning. With the help of our political leaders.

Let me explain; the terrorists want the Western World to radically change the way we live. By introducing "Patriot" acts and universal ID cards, etc. we are radically changing the way we live...

Personally, I would rather live in a dangerous democracy than a safe police-state.

markfiend wrote:Personally, I would rather live in a dangerous democracy than a safe police-state.

I know what you mean, but where does the one end and the other begin?
I do not believe we can stop terrorism, and I don’t think it will ever end. But that is not the point. I can’t see a utopia where everyone gets along happen, except in a police-state.

So what has to change? I don’t say we have to give in to terrorism but maybe its time we start looking at the causes.

I hope you get my point.

OK. So the "war on terror" is a poor choice of slogan, courtesy of a semi-literate politician.

But how do we address the root causes of terrorism without appearing to give ground to terrorists? If we can agree that bringing heavy military force to bear on suspected terrorist regions (for want of a better phrase) is more likely to inspire greater violence than it is to subdue the rebels, why does looking for a negotiated settlement help?

After all, if you see one terror campaign succeed, doesn't that inspire an rash of imitators?

I've every sympathy with moving above the "might is right" school of international diplomacy, but I'm not convinced the world at large really agrees with me. And it doesn't take a large number of people to think they can beat the system before it all falls down.

Meanwhile, it looks like the Russians have achieved the worst of both worlds yet again. Not sure why the area around the school wasn't cleared of concerned relatives / general public as a first priority. You can't really say "there was an incident in the crowd so we had to act" if you invite/allow an audience at an armed siege, ffs!

HEY, Bush is great (insert laughing here) who else can not get elected by popular vote and still one ? And what other president do you know that cannot not read ? Or invade a country for no reason at all except to finish up his daddies work ? He is the bestest, as he would say.

You may laugh at me but what’s wrong with doing the right thing for once. And don’t care about the political responses and effects.
I guess I’m very naïve but I get sick of the 2 step actions we all seem to use. We could have it so mush better for ourselves but it’s like we don’t want it because we are afraid someone else’s life is gone improve as well.
Don’t forget we are debating the most ridicule topics over here while so many people around the world have it so bad, or so mush less than we.

And I know I have no right of speaking, I have it good and I don’t do anything about all of it either.

rapture_radio wrote:HEY, Bush is great (insert laughing here) who else can not get elected by popular vote and still one ? And what other president do you know that cannot not read ? Or invade a country for no reason at all except to finish up his daddies work ? He is the bestest, as he would say.

I have long been filled with admiration for the American people and their powerfully pro-active approach to positive discrimination. The Bush administration really is a luminous beacon of equal opportunities for all. No longer need the child in remedial language classes feel inferior to his classmates, for he can look at the most powerful man in the world and say: "I am truly his equal."

Moving stuff. Little yellow fella with lump in his throat.

christophe wrote:So what has to change? I don’t say we have to give in to terrorism but maybe its time we start looking at the causes.

I hope you get my point.

I do get your point my friend. And a very good point it is too.
=======

andymackem wrote:After all, if you see one terror campaign succeed, doesn't that inspire an rash of imitators?

The thing is: a) If we back down and give in to demands, yes the terrorists have won, and we will be living in constant fear of more terrorist attacks.
but b) If we don't back down, then the "national security" measures that our benevolent governments seem to think are necessary to keep us "safe" also mean that the terrorists have won; the West is living in a state of constant "terror alerts" and "heightened security"; living in constant fear of more terrorist attacks!

What's the solution then? Fucked if I know!

andymackem wrote:I have long been filled with admiration for the American people and their powerfully pro-active approach to positive discrimination.

You know how stupid the average Republican is? Well, by definition, half of them are even more stupid than that!

Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

From what I have witnessed in the Southern hemisphere, the only thing that half-works is mediated debate. Talking. Listening. Talking some more. Listening some more. Thinking about it.
Then agreeing to meet in some disgustingly expensive conference facility - like Sun City, spending at least R12 million rand on your deliberations (read: all expenses paid holiday for your diplomatic self, wife, mistress and kids) and arriving at a "diplomatic settlement", which you promptly ignore as soon as you get back home.
Works everytime.

lucretia wrote:Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

From what I have witnessed in the Southern hemisphere, the only thing that half-works is mediated debate. Talking. Listening. Talking some more. Listening some more. Thinking about it.
Then agreeing to meet in some disgustingly expensive conference facility - like Sun City, spending at least R12 million rand on your deliberations (read: all expenses paid holiday for your diplomatic self, wife, mistress and kids) and arriving at a "diplomatic settlement", which you promptly ignore as soon as you get back home.
Works everytime.

you forgot to mention the travel vouchers.

hallucienate wrote:

lucretia wrote:Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

From what I have witnessed in the Southern hemisphere, the only thing that half-works is mediated debate. Talking. Listening. Talking some more. Listening some more. Thinking about it.
Then agreeing to meet in some disgustingly expensive conference facility - like Sun City, spending at least R12 million rand on your deliberations (read: all expenses paid holiday for your diplomatic self, wife, mistress and kids) and arriving at a "diplomatic settlement", which you promptly ignore as soon as you get back home.
Works everytime.

you forgot to mention the travel vouchers.

I wanted to keep that quiet ...

IMHO The Biggest and Worst "Terrorist" of them all is Bush, His "Inner Circle" and Corporate America

The whole Iraq *cough* "Conflict" is about Oil (all 16.3 Billion Barrels of stuff!) and IMHO the yet to be built Natural Gas pipe line between the Dead Sea and The Caspian Sea.

On the other hand it is estimated that the Bin-Laden family OWN about 7% of the USA and have about a TRILLION (1,000,000,000,000) Dollars "invested" in the US.

Were they, the Bin-Ladens, to remove this investment the US economy would simply collapse. As the USA is the home of Consumerism, with the UK catching up fast IMHO, the "Adminstration" and their bankers can NOT allow this to happen. Hence Osama Bin-Laden has not and will not be caught.

BTW The UK is the 51st State!

lucretia wrote:Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

i've been thinking about this a lot lately.

i've just watched "newsnight" on bbc and seen the footage of all the dead in russia: all those children running for their lives from the school building as the bomb goes off, covered in their own and their friends' blood, while their anxious parents await news barely 50 yards away. bodies lined up on the grass while parents pull back covers to see if the child beneath the tarpauline is theirs.

i'm weeping as i type this.

i think the crucial difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is the lengths to which they are prepared to go to fight their cause. if they are ready and willing to take the lives of innocent civilians then i think they cross the line. for me, any moral high-ground they may have had after enduring years of injustice and oppression becomes more-or-less null and void when they decide that it is morally acceptable to blow up a school full of children.

i'm stunned.

the lengths are wide open after 9/11, the methods may vary

Quiff Boy wrote:

lucretia wrote:Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

(...)i think the crucial difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is the lengths to which they are prepared to go to fight their cause. if they are ready and willing to take the lives of innocent civilians then i think they cross the line. for me, any moral high-ground they may have had after enduring years of injustice and oppression becomes more-or-less null and void when they decide that it is morally acceptable to blow up a school full of children.

i'm stunned.

But what else can they do? They don't have a proper army. They don't have tanks. They don't even have their own government to speak for their rights.
Did you hear what one of the hostages, who managed to escape on Thursday, say - she said she'd asked one of the terrorists/freedom fighters* why they were using innocent children to try to achieve their aims, and he'd answered: when my children were slaughtered, no one asked me questions.
Just how much do we know about Chechnya?

As for the blow up, I'm prone to believe it was the Russians who did it, just as they did in Dubrovka.
One thing that's certain: if Chechnyans' demands are not met, there will be more such tragedies. But Putin doesn't care, his nation is big enough, 200 people more or less doesn't make much difference.

*delete as you wish

_emma_ wrote: But what else can they do? They don't have a proper army. They don't have tanks. They don't even have their own government to speak for their rights.
Did you hear what one of the hostages, who managed to escape on Thursday, say - she said she'd asked one of the terrorists/freedom fighters* why they were using innocent children to try to achieve their aims, and he'd answered: when my children were slaughtered, no one asked me questions.
Just how much do we know about Chechnya?

As for the blow up, I'm prone to believe it was the Russians who did it, just as they did in Dubrovka.
One thing that's certain: if Chechnyans' demands are not met, there will be more such tragedies. But Putin doesn't care, his nation is big enough, 200 people more or less doesn't make much difference.

*delete as you wish

What do we know about Chechnya? Well, it has three or four variant spellings, which doesn't help, but this is my (limited) understanding.

It's one of dozens of republics which make up the Russian Federation. Other ones you may have heard of include North Ossetia, Siberia, Karelia, Tatarstan etc. These are not to be confused with former Soviet republics of which there are 15, including Russia, which are now independent nation states. A Russian republic is effectively a province of the Russian nation.

Many of these, Chechnya included, want to be independent from Moscow. In Kazan there is a politically active independence movement seeking a separate Tartarstan, and parts of Siberia have declared themselves independent since 1991, but no-one paid any attention (it's worth remembering that in the early years of the 20th century a suspected meteorite strike destroyed 1,000 square miles of Siberian forest and it took about five years before anyone realised - it's a big place!).

The Chechen rebels installed their own government in the mid-90s and were met with crushing military force from Moscow (sent by Yeltsin). When I was in Russia people asked me why the assault on Grozny was morally different from British troops on the streets of Belfast. In crude terms, the British forces didn't unleash a barrage of heavy artillery or air strikes against Belfast: quite a significant change of approach, but hard to explain tactfully in a foreign language. And I didn't really want to hear Iraq or Afghanistan mentioned, either

As Emma points out, there is no way any separatist group can match the firepower of the Russian military, so they resorted to terrorism. Amnesty and others carry reports of appalling behaviour by sections of the Russian army, but it's also worth remembering that this is largely a conscript force being sent into an arena of street-to-street guerilla fighting. One of the most vocal groups against Putin's handling of the situation is comprised of mothers of soldiers killed in the conflict, many of whom were almost akin to 'gap-year' students.

When Putin came to power he staked his reputation on rebuilding a strong Russia. This is something which has a huge resonance in the national psyche. The concept of the "rodina", the motherland or Mother Russia is amazingly strong. It almost transcends what we in the west might understand as nationalism, and like any form of patriotism can manifest itself in positive and negative ways. Fundamentally it explains why Russia refuses to accept outside help: this is the same country which denied any problem at Chernobyl while the IAEA produced satellite imaging of radiation across Europe; which wouldn't allow NATO vessels to help salvage the Kursk submarine; and which now won't welcome international mediation over Chechnya.

To back down now would be a personal political disaster for Putin. Historically Russia has relied on a strong centralised state to hold it together: the line runs from Genghiz Khan through Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and on the Communist era, with precious little sign of liberal democracy.

Potentially, though, it would also represent the death of Russia as a nation state. Chechnya itself is a rat-hole. It's in the middle of nowhere, and apart from the fact that the Americans really wouldn't appreciate seeing a fundamentalist Islamic state emerge in the Trans-causacaus there's not much point in keeping hold of it (soem Russians may feel that annoying the US is worth it anyway, but that's another issue). Even its possible oil wealth is wholly theoretical at the moment, and Russia has the whole of Siberia to play with for natural resources.

But, if Chechnya goes, the pressure from the likes of Tartarstan would become greater. 48% of their population is ethnically Russian, and would almost certainly choose to leave an asiatic/islamic dominated nation .... heading straight to Moscow as refugees. Repeat that across most of southern and eastern Russia and you have a huge crisis in a second-world country which would be ill-equipped to cope. Moscow's infrastructure can barely contain its current size and there simply aren't the resources to expand quickly and safely without UN help which wouldn't be acceptable (see above).

Moreover, Russia's economic prospects are tied up with the oil and gas reserves in Siberia, and the fact that in a country stretching from Poland to Japan and from the Arctic to the Tropics you can mine or grow pretty much anything you like. The more regions drop off, the less of that wealth is accessible to "greater Russia". Consequently all of that mineral reserve is left increasingly unaccessible: an independent Kamchatka (for sake of argument) would be in no position to retrieve it without help from Russia .... or the UN/US. Meanwhile, European Russia, which may have reverted back to something approaching the ancient Kyivan Rus state of the pre-Tsarist era, would be left with a large population of resident and refugee Russians and an economy built around grain and (very limited) tourism and cultural trade. And lots of nuclear missiles.

Thus we have the intractable: Chechnya on its own matters relatively little, but the knock-on effects could be vast and unpredictable. No Russian leader can afford to take that gamble, and it's easier to win votes at home by talking tough and shooting people.

/author's note - the above is probably best seen as a semi-informed opinion rather than a cast-iron collection of facts. This is the internet, ffs. Go do some proper research if you're not happy with my conclusions!/

Here's some pictures to consider: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/che ... photo1.htm
http://czeczenia.weblab.pl/indexer.html

Does anyone else find interest in the fact that all evil (aka "terrorism") seems to be traced back to enemies identified by our government as reason to enter into a new improved version of colonization??? Let us not forget that now the Al Quaedais being held responsible for the school crisis... Russia is vowing to fight and all of this comes during a Chechen (sp?) election year where Putin has picked his winner... How convenient that the US gets another tragedy to pin on Al Quaeda and Putin gets another reason to trounce in Chechnya

The enemies are always the same kids as in the round of the last kickball game the only difference seems to be that we are willing to send more and more to the slaughter and the exact goal of doing so seems to become lost in some nebulous haze of governmental s**t... And in the meantime these countries which house terrorist make a nice little slick path of oil and/or piping to a seaport... Looks like we will be sending a meet and greet to Iran sometime soon... Sigh... And oil can be extracted from such useless sources as pig s**t (true really!) yet we thirst for what is readily accessible.

Bush said this past week that the "war on terrorism" could not be won and when that had the potential to cause a loss in popularity points, he had the "not" in that phase discretely whited out... Yet it is his clear vision of the future for which I am supposed to cast a vote... And ignore the fact that we are near the 1000 mark in casualties of soldiers (remember when 100 was an atrocity) and that he skims over the fact that the unemployed rate is actually not lower but that he has just limited the amount of people who qualify...

The rights that our supposed to be guaranteed in the US have actually been a casuality of this war as well and I look forward to indulging in nice censored brainwashed posts in the not so near future...

In theory, the alternative candidate should be better right??? Hahahahaha!!! They're all chuckleheads!!!

And what is needed to rectify the world's ills? Well two theories.. The first is the lost art of diplomacy. No one wants to take time to avoid a conflict... instead we go straight to Colin Powell making presentations to the UN. The other is that there will always be a nemesis unless someone restricts all of our rights and makes us all get along and strips us of our diversity... Not a big fan of the latter.

This is a multifaceted topic for terrorism is not always what one is led to believe. Sadly, we can't even trust the media to gather facts to form an educated opinion. The best we can do is weed through the info and try to find shreds of truth. For those who have the interest, highly suggest reading David Icke's "Tales From The Time Loop." Although, don't agree with everything he writes (i.e. theory of creation), his low down on key historical events as well as connecting the dots in a current, big picture way is quite an eye opener...

andymackem wrote:Have been following the school siege in southern Russia (albeit vaguely) and the related bombings of Russian airlines and a suicide attack in Moscow. Those familiar with my enthusiasm for Russia will doubtless guess why, the rest of you can catch up!

In a nut shell:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 04,00.html

OK. So the "war on terror" is a poor choice of slogan, courtesy of a semi-literate politician

see the bible, or at least interpretations from C16, i forget. anyway, it's not a new idea

Yep, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ... how the hell do you get around that?!

too simplistic? stop reporting it, column inches are the number one weapon.

sorry, i have other things on my mind, can't write more

TTFN

This is not about Russia but it is a very disturbing awakening...

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf