Chechen Rebels go too far

[calculoso]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...610988-ap.html

Attackers wearing suicide-bomb belts seized a Russian school in a region bordering Chechnya on Wednesday, taking hostage about 400 people -- half of them children -- and threatening to blow up the building.

Seizing a school on the first day of school?

Threats have been made, according to QR77, that if any of the rebels is killed they'll take out 50 kids.

Insane.

First the planes, then the car bomb outside the subway in Moscow, and now this. What's next??

[Frank the Tank]

I'm so happy I live in Canada.....hold 200 children hostage? Just brutal. That'll get you sympathy for your cause, kill a bunch of innocent little kids.

[Fotiu]

That totally sucks, BUT, in all fairness, how many Chechen kids do you think have been killed? I do not condone any of this, just trying to see the situation from their side. This world of ours is a freakin mess. :angry:

[Frank the Tank]

Well, I somewhat agree with what you said, I just find it hard to think that people would intentionally round-up children for the purpose of blowing them up. I agree that the world is a freakin' mess. No denying that.

[habernac]

So now the Chechens join the scumbags of the world. They've lost any sympathy I've ever had for them over the last week. They're no better than the suicide bombers in Israel or the cowardly Al Quaeda. There is nothing to be gained by hurting innocent people.

[Lurch]

There is nothing to be gained by hurting innocent people.

A very worthwhile thought, though the western world tends to see things differently than might be the case in the rest of the world. Collateral damage is acceptable to us as long as it occurs from a military campaign by people wearing uniforms. To the innocent Iraqi whose house was mistakenly or accidentally bombed, I doubt there is a great deal of distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. Intent doesn't mean a hill of beans to me if someone blows up my kid - regardless, I'm out for revenge.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 1 2004, 04:10 PM

A very worthwhile thought, though the western world tends to see things differently than might be the case in the rest of the world. Collateral damage is acceptable to us as long as it occurs from a military campaign by people wearing uniforms. To the innocent Iraqi whose house was mistakenly or accidentally bombed, I doubt there is a great deal of distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. Intent doesn't mean a hill of beans to me if someone blows up my kid - regardless, I'm out for revenge.

Intent has a lot to do with it. The American's are not out gaining bloody vengence on woman and children. collateral damage does happen in any declared war and thats a tragedy, but its not an intentional targeting.

What the Chechen's and other terrorists are doing is declaring war on woman and children, and going out of thier way to harm and kill them.

It might not mean a hill of beans to you, but its a leap over a large chasm for me.

[Bill Bumface]

I thought I heard on the radio this morning that 8 were already dead... was I still half asleep, or is this true?

I can't imagine being one of those parents right now. You'd feel utterly helpless.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 1 2004, 04:21 PM
Intent has a lot to do with it. The American's are not out gaining bloody vengence on woman and children. collateral damage does happen in any declared war and thats a tragedy, but its not an intentional targeting.

What the Chechen's and other terrorists are doing is declaring war on woman and children, and going out of thier way to harm and kill them.

It might not mean a hill of beans to you, but its a leap over a large chasm for me.

You're right, the American's are not out gaining bloody vengeance. You're also right in assuming that motives matter. I'm not sure why American lust for 'democracy' (the same kind that saw the loser of the last election become President) and 'stability' in oil-producing regions is so much more benevolent than terrorism. Hell, if you read _many_ experts, it is specifically American foreign policy, especially in its unrestricted support for Israel, that causes much of these terrorist actions. Every time a terrorist is able to give out his reasoning for killing, he doesn't say "I hate freedom, I hate Democracy, I hate Westerners". Anyone that thinks that this is their prime motivation for inflicting violence is seriously misinformed about the nature of the conflict. In fact, what they do say, is "I did this because of American support for Israel" or something to that effect. But do we actually question the legitimacy of US involvement there? Hell no. We say that the terrorists started it, and we're going to finish it... when in reality we started it, and they're doing they're darndest to finish it.

Sorry, long diatribe, but its a fun topic

[Agamemnon]

Of course, the Chechen conflict is far removed from the Palestinian/Israeli one, though there are significant right-to-self-determination comparisons.

[octothorp]

So here's an ethical question:

We all know that it's generally a mistake to negotiate with terrorists and give in to their demands. It tends to encourage further terrorism, as we've seen from companies and governments caving to hostage-takers in Iraq. But in a case like this, do you put those principles aside to try to save the lives of these children, even if it means granting concessions to the terrorists? On the one hand, letting so many innocent people die because you're sticking to your principles seems very arrogant. On the other hand, caving increases the likelihood that others will attempt attacks like this in the future.

[calf]

Good question octo.

You know what, when all's said and done, you have to do what you can to save children's lives. Period. Get them out of there safe no matter what.


My question: do you think that this might spur some anti-Chechen sentiment/anger in the children, possibly keeping things bad once they're grown up?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by octothorp@Sep 1 2004, 05:59 PM
So here's an ethical question:

We all know that it's generally a mistake to negotiate with terrorists and give in to their demands. It tends to encourage further terrorism, as we've seen from companies and governments caving to hostage-takers in Iraq. But in a case like this, do you put those principles aside to try to save the lives of these children, even if it means granting concessions to the terrorists? On the one hand, letting so many innocent people die because you're sticking to your principles seems very arrogant. On the other hand, caving increases the likelihood that others will attempt attacks like this in the future.

Agree w/ Calf, fantastic question. My jaded, liberal view on why 'we' don't negotiate with hostage takers is because they pose a fundamental threat to the most cherished concept in organized states, which is stability/law and order. The state controls _everything_ through the legitimacy of law and order. If that were to break down, ie. people go against law and order and are not punished for it, then we'd get what the government would view as anarchy.

Though, really, every situation should be treated differently. If you're a bank-robber and you've taken hostages, that's one thing. If you're a downtrodden rebel who's had his/her family killed by another group of people, and you've taken some of those people hostage, that's a different situation.

I don't really sympathize a whole lot w/ hostage takers, or terrorists, but i lack the same sympathy for those who generalize and trivialize their motives.

If Calgary was Grozny, and Alberta was incorporated into the United States, w/ the US installing Texans and New Yorkers as our governors, we'd probably have a beef about it. If they started saying we could only dress as they do, speak the language they speak, pay taxes to them, etc., we'd probably start to get pretty p*ssed. If we told them we wanted out of the federation, and instead they rolled tanks through our town and said resist us and die, I'm sure a few CalPuckers would take to guerilla warfare like fish to water.

All I'm saying is, without experiencing the kind of desperation these people have, you can't judge them. Killing children is bad. I'm sure some of these terrorist have already lost their's.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 1 2004, 11:02 AM
My question: do you think that this might spur some anti-Chechen sentiment/anger in the children, possibly keeping things bad once they're grown up?

Not only would it spur anti-Chechen feelings in these children, it would probably increase anti-Chechen sentiments across Russia and around the world. And that would give Russia pretty much a blank-cheque to go into Chechnya and do whatever they want. I'll bet there are some old communist die-hards (or capitalist die-hards, for that matter) in Moscow, thinking that the best thing that could happen here is for the terrorists to kill a few hundred Russian schoolchildren.

[Agamemnon]

Something makes me think that Chechen PR is not a high priority for them at this point. I'm pretty sure they believe that Russia will _never_ let them have their independence if they don't resort to these types of means. It's been moderately successful for the Palestinians, as their other option was basically roll over and allow Israelis to consume all of what is "Israel" on the map. Now there are international institutions in place to at least address Palestinian concerns, if not satisfy them.

[CaptainCrunch]

The Chechen's have never been treated well the Romanov's hated them. Stalin had them exported en masse to Siberia, and the current government has been left with a problem that they have no way to deal with properly.

The Chechen's haven't made the situation any easier with thier unwillingness to negotiate with the current government in place.

If they were going after government heads, or military units I would have very little problems with it, however they are going after children, and I have a big problem with that.

Can you give into thier demands or negotiate with the hostage takers. As much as I am sentimental towards children. I don't think they can. Its all about patterns. If the Chechen rebels see an operational success by kidnaping kinds, its unlikely that this will be the last instance of it. If they fail at it, they might rethink this strategy. You can't encourage these people by allowing them to have success no matter what they cost. Its how thier minds operate.

Can you compare the Chechen's to the Palestines. Not really, the oppression level is different, and the Chechen's are in the hopeless situation of being able to rely on nobody else but themselves.

The Palestine situation is a whole other ball of way. They are being used as a political pawn by the other Arab states who could help difuse the situation but choose not to because of a historical hatred of the jews. They are also a focal point for a lot of different arab terrorist groups who even if a peace is bought about wouldn't allow things to settle down, its a nice little controlled environment for them on the effects of a terrorist campaign.

Somebody bought up blame for the American's for the unequaled support of the israeli's and I have to wonder. Politically it would be suicdide for any standing government (even one run by Kerry) to flat out abandon Israel, there are too many jewish voters. Israel is also the closest thing to a democracy in that region, and that needs to be respected and protected. The U.S. has tried time and time again to implement workable peaceful solutions that have never worked, because it allows a jewish state to survive in a predominant Muslin region.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 1 2004, 08:10 PM
The Chechen's have never been treated well the Romanov's hated them. Stalin had them exported en masse to Siberia, and the current government has been left with a problem that they have no way to deal with properly.

The Chechen's haven't made the situation any easier with thier unwillingness to negotiate with the current government in place.

If they were going after government heads, or military units I would have very little problems with it, however they are going after children, and I have a big problem with that.

Can you give into thier demands or negotiate with the hostage takers. As much as I am sentimental towards children. I don't think they can. Its all about patterns. If the Chechen rebels see an operational success by kidnaping kinds, its unlikely that this will be the last instance of it. If they fail at it, they might rethink this strategy. You can't encourage these people by allowing them to have success no matter what they cost. Its how thier minds operate.

Can you compare the Chechen's to the Palestines. Not really, the oppression level is different, and the Chechen's are in the hopeless situation of being able to rely on nobody else but themselves.

The Palestine situation is a whole other ball of way. They are being used as a political pawn by the other Arab states who could help difuse the situation but choose not to because of a historical hatred of the jews. They are also a focal point for a lot of different arab terrorist groups who even if a peace is bought about wouldn't allow things to settle down, its a nice little controlled environment for them on the effects of a terrorist campaign.

Somebody bought up blame for the American's for the unequaled support of the israeli's and I have to wonder. Politically it would be suicdide for any standing government (even one run by Kerry) to flat out abandon Israel, there are too many jewish voters. Israel is also the closest thing to a democracy in that region, and that needs to be respected and protected. The U.S. has tried time and time again to implement workable peaceful solutions that have never worked, because it allows a jewish state to survive in a predominant Muslin region.

The Chechens are actually able to rely on the same network of Mujahadeen fighters and organizers that the Palestinians have access to. Both are Muslim nations which had many citizens trained and fighting against the Soviets (despite Chechnya's inclusion in the Soviet Empire) in Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been known to assist Chechens with logistics (ie funneling weapons, food, medicine, other supplies). Thus, the situations, while not identical, have many similar roots and personalities.

Also, Arab 'historical' hatred of the Jews goes back about 80 years, give or take a couple of decades. Traditionally, Christians and Jews were tolerated by Arab-Muslims as 'people of the book', and were to be tolerated (not forced to change their religion). In fact, during the major clash of civilizations during the Crusades, the Christians were known to hate and mistreat the Jews FAR more than the Muslim states. I'm sure the West wouldn't look nearly as kindly on Jewry today if it hadn't been for the holocaust, which, though the most reprehensible act of our day, has also been a great boon for surviving Jews, as it instigated international support for a Jewish homeland.

I doubt the US would ever 'flatly abandon' Israel, mostly because that would look extremely hypocritical. It would also leave Israel without strategic allies, surrounded by some seriously p*ssed off Muslim states. As for Israel being a democracy in the Middle East, that's true. The downside is that a region that previously had no more than 10,000 Jews total, in the middle of millions of Muslims, had to be conquered and 'purified' before this democracy was allowed to take root.

[CaptainCrunch]

When I talked about the lack of support in Chechnia (sp?) I was basing it on political support and certainly not logistical support. Nobody is really coming to bat for them against the Russians.

80 to 100 years to me is historical. since the Jews received Israel from the UN, they have been attacked on numerous occassions by the Arab/Muslim states. They have also been aggresively attacked by terrorists on repeated occasions.

If anyone is to be blamned for this mess its the UN, who has never been effective in that region, and never thought things through as far as security for the Jews went.

[Agamemnon]

Well, the Jews were heading to 'Israel' en masse, well before World War II. They just started buying up the land from the rich landowners, who mostly lived in Syria or Turkey. After WWII, the process was sped up quite a bit, mostly due to Jewish organizations who encouraged emigration to Israel. UN support for a Jewish state had no bearing on whether or not it was established. The British made way for the creation of the state through their pro-Jewish policies when they had control of the region before and after WWII.

80-100 years is nothing when considering the actual history of this region. Jews often cite their right to the area going back to biblical times. If something happened centuries ago (like the illegal seizure of Texas from Mexico by the US), then its basically bygone. However, if it happened in recent memory (people still alive who were there at the start) then its not really history, its more current events. I've got a degree in History and a degree in Political Science. I don't consider anything 'historical' unless it happened before the 1900's, as events that occurred this century still profoundly affect our current thoughts and actions, and therefore, imo, fall under the category of political science, even if they happened decades ago.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

It is really hard for me to so poor Russians because the way their army has acted over in that part of the world is abhorent, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of taking civilians as hostages, something which is all to common in todays world.

It is amazing that the conflict over there does not get more airtime than it does though because from what I have read it is really similar to Vietnam.