Islamic Terrorist in Chechnya

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Leo Hubbard, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #1
    I've seen this on TV havn't seen it on the internet yet.
    Islamic terrorist took over a school and have threatened to blow up the entire school if Russians rush the place. They have also stated they would kill 50 children for everyone of their own that gets hit.

    This is the price we have to pay to let them make the first move. Hiding out in a mosque in Iraq to hiding out in a school in Chechnya. These people can't be allowed to have the first moves. We know who they are we need to take them out on sight.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Do "we"? In that case, perhaps "we" should let the Russians know, as they don't seem to have much idea, do they?
     
  3. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #3
    I am sure they are perfectly aware of their delima.
    We the people of earth need to eradicate terrorism as much as possible.
    Prove to them terrorism doesn't work and there will be fewer terrorists.
    Prove to them terrorism does work and there will be more schools held hostage in the future.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Massacre their countrymen, carpet-bomb their capital and occupy their country, like the Russians did in Chechnya and the US did in Iraq, and, lo and behold, you find everybody is suddenly willing to become a "terrorist". If some overbearing, arrogant foreign power did that to your country, you'd probably feel the same way.
     
  5. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #5
    So you think it is perfectly acceptable to blow up kids and civilians or hold them hostage as a means to win a war if your the underdog in the war or battle?
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    I don't recall saying that. I'm saying that killing more and more people doesn't solve anything. The problem must be solved politically.
     
  7. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #7
    Oh, so what you are saying is anytime anyone wants a government to capitulate to their demands all they have to do is kidnap and hold hostage a school full of children. This is regardless to whether their demands has merits or not.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    I did not say that either. Why don't you just carry on this argument by yourself, since you seem to be so good at putting words into my mouth?
     
  9. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    When all else fails, blame Islam.

    *sigh*

    You obviously don't understand the situation in Russia, because almost everyone agrees this is the work of Chechnian seperatists. Why do you always want to blame Islamic radicals?

    From a NYTimes article on the crisis:

    Maybe some contextual information would help you understand the horrible problem of the Chechnyan state. From Wikipedia's entry on Chechnya:

    So the entire state is under the control of the Russian federal army (you "constitutional conservatives" LOVE the idea of the army controlling civillian lives, don't you? [/sarcasm]). Further, 80 percent of Chechnya's economy was destroyed in the war. This left the country with a 75% or higher unemployment rate. Supposed economic assistance from the Russian central government was received be the needy at a rate of 17% of the stated amount of aid.

    The state is in economic ruin. There are tens of thousands of widows and orphans from the war. The central government is occupying the state and giving only sparse aid. Sound like a great situation, doesn't it?

    This is not an excuse for terrorism! This is an acknowledgement of the fact that Russia ROYALLY screwed up Chechnya (with the help of the seperatists) and that they should make a serious effort to repair that damage. There is no excuse for terrorism. But you do reap what you sew. You can't go into a state, kill tens of thousands of people, then expect those people to turn around and forget and forgive. There are consequences to every action. Often those consequences are predictable. It is sad that so few governments are able to see those consequences or care about them if they do.

    Taft
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    well put, taft.

    i'll add that deplorable tactics such as taking children hostage and threatening to kill them are tactics forced by desperation and disenfranchisement.

    in combating it, there are ultimately two choices:
    1. ethnic cleansing
    2. leaving the country alone

    but like saudi arabia, iraq, et. al., the chechans are sitting on precious oil. and they'll die because of it.
     
  11. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #11
    someone correct me if im wrong, but aren't they more seperatists than islamic terrorists?
     
  12. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #12
    Exactly right. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Chechnya didn't have oil reserves, Putin wouldn't have cared if they had split back in the early nineties. In fact, oil profits were probably a factor in the seperatists wanting to split in the first place. No central government = more control over oil and its profits.

    Funny what money and power make people do. (Funny in a sick sort of way.)

    Taft
     
  13. mouchoir macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    No, I think the point was if things were solved politically to start with, then people wouldn't feel their last chance is to resort to terrorism.

    Much in the way that in if people listened carefully in a conversation without jumping in, they wouldn't feel the need to to be on the offensive all the time.
     
  14. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #14
    Leo,

    Have you heard of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland? The UK mainland and the north of Ireland were subject to countless terrorist attacks over a 70-year period, with thousands of casualties.

    The main protagonists, the IRA, were funded by sympathetic supporters, many in the USA.

    Within the last few years the hostilities have almost entirely ceased, due to a political settlement.

    Answer me this:

    1) Should the US be denounced as having aided terrorists?

    2) Were the UK authorities wrong to enter into political discussions with the IRA which have lead to the end of terror?
     
  15. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #15
    They are terrorist, they use terroristic tactics as a means of achieving their goals. They are not fighting the so called Government, occupiers, soldiers, etc when they take over a school and threaten to kill the kids.

    The chechyna rebels are terrorists. They are also Islamic. That makes them Islamic terrorists.
    who else use the word Jihad besides Islamists?
    who else combat civilians instead of military targets except terrorists. These aren't accidental or incindental, additional casualties in their war, these civilians are their targets.
    You never give in to terrorists.
    they relate themselves to other Islamic terrorist groups on purpose.
     
  16. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #16
    The US should have imprisoned those who aided the IRA.
    I may be wrong, but I would not be surprised to find out that there was a Democrat in charge in the white house during that time.

    Yes the UK authorities were wrong. Solving the IRA's problem to get rid of terrorism has shown other people who weren't terrorism that terrorism works. And that could be the blame for the increase in terrorism, because more people are using these tactics as a means to get attention to their own problems.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Typical. I think you'll find that at several points during the Troubles, which began in 1969, there may have been a Republican incumbent.

    On the contrary, o bloodthirsty one, it has shown other terrorists that entering the political process is worthwhile.
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #18
    Yes, they are terrorists, we agree. But the people they represent (the average Chechen citizen) is not a terrorist, but an underprivileged, disenfranchised individual in a war-torn area. If, for the benefit of those non-terrorists, as well as the benefit of Slavs living in Chechnya, a peaceful agreement may be reached, then that would be best for all.

    Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. He also has a beard. That makes him a Beard Terrorist.

    Coincidence is not causal. Look at the motivations for violence in Chechnya. It is not a question of religion, but a question of economics, sovereignty, politics, and a desire for separation.

    Well, clearly, the person you quoted. Notice that it isn't a Chechen rebel using the word 'jihad' in the quote you provide, but a person who applies that word to the situation in Chechnya. Therefore, this is outside labeling and not self-identification.

    Well, plenty of people actually combat civilians instead of military targets, in the sense that it is done carelessly or accidentally. But you're right that one would generally classify a terrorist as a person who pursues civilians as targets, especially with that purpose in mind. It is, however, a moot point.

    Complex international policy cannot be dictated by six-word maxims. No, no, foreign relations does not comprise a compendium of binary situations. Instead, it is subtle, with particularities and complications that arise from specific arrangements. Therefore, if the most good for the most people can be provided by negotiation between warring factions, then that path should be taken. Look at Northern Ireland, considered above by another poster. Consider Israel and Palestine; few take the extreme point of view that the problems will be solved by exterminating the terrorists (whether those terrorists are Israeli or Palestinian).

    What you fail to realize is that terrorism is not the problem, but rather the flawed solution provided to resolve underlying tensions. In other words, eliminating the terrorists does not solve the problem that Chechens desire freedom. That will remain and it will likely maintain the propagation of terrorists in order to attempt to achieve the ends of liberty. Long-term reduction of terrorism requires nipping it at its source: Socioeconomic and sociopolitical international tension that breeds desperation and anger, inspiring individuals to commit terrorist attacks. Terrorists will be produced at a faster rate than we can eliminate them if all we do is try to kill them off without paying attention to the source of the problem. The source is harder to confront, but strong, intelligent, sensitive leadership would seek the root instead of the branches.

    Leo, why do you struggle so much with separating the labels others put on groups from the labels that groups put on themselves? If I called you an imbecile (which I'm not!!!), that wouldn't mean that you thought of yourself as one. Similarly, just because the Russians, according to your quote, implicate uncorroborated connections between the Chechens and al-Qaeda, that doesn't mean that the Chechens identify themselves with Islamic terrorists. That's like saying that when bigots direct racial slurs against minorities, the use of these slurs proves the minorities' self-identification with those words. It makes no sense.
     
  19. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #19
    I'm running short on time, they themselves connected themselves to Islamic muslims elsewhere including Hamas, and al-qaida. This isn't a label given to them by other people this is a label they laid on themselves.
    there are better older stories on this but I'm not looking them up right now. They've been connecting themselves with other Islamic terrorist groups for years.
     
  20. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #20
    Please excuse the double post, but I find it necessary to address this. Let's imagine that the US and UK took a hardline against the IRA:

    1. Both sides imprison and kill IRA-connected individuals.
    2. Irish nationalists get upset and enlist with the IRA.
    3. IRA, now-strengthened, retaliates against British.
    4. British retaliate.
    5. IRA kills little schoolchildren and blows up buses.
    6. British retaliate.
    7. IRA retaliates.
    8. British retaliate.
    .
    .
    .
    10000000000. THERE IS NO PEACE.

    Is this a better option than achieving peace? What is the highest-order goal? Is it to show our distate for terrorists or to achieve a newfound peace?

    Terrorism is a vehicle of action, often political or economic action. It is a terrible, unjustifiable vehicle, but it is a vehicle nonetheless. Therefore, unless we can address those concerns that cause large groups to become hostile, we cannot eliminate the possibility that such groups will turn to terrorism to redress what they perceive as ways in which they were wronged. Instead, we must approach these issues in a way that can let civilians sleep at night, not let governments declare brash military victories.

    I want a peaceful world and I'm happy to stop (not avoid) bloodshed in the long-term by any means necessary.

    If terrorists, as I argue, don't just make elaborate plots to kill people for funsies, then they are looking to solve certain issues in a particular manner. If they discover that governments are reasonable enough to rectify conflicts at tables instead of in trenches, then perhaps more people will seek diplomacy over violence in order to achieve stability.

    This does not mean that you always negotiate with every petty terrorist that comes along, but you do negotiate peace treaties and ceasefires, because ceasing the fire is the goal of the country attacked in the first place.
     
  21. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #21
    So the ideology is more important than the reality? It's better for people to carry on blowing each other up than sit down and sort out their differences?

    If that's your honest opinion I feel sorry that I've ever bothered to respond to a single one of your posts. You are beyond hope.

    Ignore button, where are you?
     
  22. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #22

    OK, maybe that's the case. But I haven't seen these (I must admit that I'm not as well-versed in this matter as I am in others) and you haven't proven it to me. My bone to pick wasn't necessarily that you were wrong, but that you provided quotes as sources that had nothing to do with proving your point.
     
  23. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    You need not bend over backwords proving these people are terrorists. Everyone here agrees that they are.

    However, you use the words "Islamic terrorist" to describe these individuals. This is completely wrong.

    First, Islamic terrorist is a ridiculous term. How would you describe the Unibomber, Timmothy McVeigh, or any member of the IRA? Christian terrorists? They are all Christian, after all, so lets start using that term! Of course we don't describe them as Christian terrorists. Why? Because the fact that they were Christian had nothing to do with their terrorist intents.

    Many on the right have hijacked the term "Islamic Terrorist" to mean "any person of Islamic background who commits an act of terrorism." Why should this be? Wouldn't a more accurate definition be "a terrorist whose actions stem from extremist beliefs in Islam which they use to justify jihads against other groups."

    Have you ever seen the movie "The Rock?" Its about a military commander who becomes disgruntled with the Army for mistreating veterans of some conflict. They take out this frustration by taking Alcatraz prison hostage and threatening to use chemical weapons against San Fransisco if their demands aren't met. Would you agree these actions are the actions of a terrorist? Most would. Now lets pretend that these men were Islamic. Would you call them "Islamic terrorists"? Please remember that the motivation for their actions has nothing to do with Islam.

    I would liken this to the situation with Chechnya. Islam plays a very small role in the terrorist activities we are seeing in Russia today. Overwhelmingly, these activities revolve around a war in which 150,000 people have died since 1991. The Chechnyans want freedom, the Russians want to keep them, and both sides have been fighting tooth and nail over those facts.

    Besides ONE INCIDENT (the theatre crisis a couple years back, in which their dress was similar to Jihadists), I challenge you to find any references which show that these men are motivated by their religion to conduct terrorist activities against Russia. Hint: you won't find such literature. They aren't commiting these crime because of Islam. They are committing them because of a conflict they feel is unjust, as well as a feeling of desperation from years of economic and social oppression.

    You have thus far given no argument for why these people should be associated with al Quida and their ilk. Provide evidence, or quit spouting baseless innuendo.

    Taft
     
  24. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    My god. You don't even read the links you post, do you?

    I humbly ask everyone here to follow the above link and, while reading it, ask yourself the question: does this article bolster Leo Hubbard's case that these radicals are overwhelmingly Islamic Terrorists, or does this article bolster my case that these radicals are nationalistic seperatists?

    This article repeatedly states that targetting of civilians was a new tactic of the rebels, and one which their central structure denounced. It also states that their ideology is rooted in "secular nationalism" and that their tactics were decidedly different than the tactics of al Qaida.

    Leave it to a Boortz follower to cherry-pick paragraphs from a long and nuanced argument to prop up their flimsy case.

    Bleh.

    Taft
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    American citizens' funding (mostly Irish immigrants) in the 20s helped Ireland win their war of independence. The rebels used guerilla warfare. Michael Collins was known for his willingness to commit savage murder to weaken the resolve of the British.

    Since he's so fond of making others' arguments for them, and because I won't see his reply, I'll say I'm sure Leo thinks any surviving US donors should be rounded up and imprisoned for supporting terror.
     

Share This Page