Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on the russian school & theater fiasco?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I suspect that virtually all of the victims were killed by the incompetence and apathy of the Russian military, not the Chenens.  I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a joke going around Russia, that its not the terrorists one should be afraid of, but the rescue.  In this and previous hostage situations, the military has shown gross apathy for the fate of the hostages themselves, as it's only goal seems to kill the terrorists. Contrasted to other Western nations, the inability and/or unwillingness of Putin’s government to deal with terrorism seems appalling, if not suspicious.

Also, I've not seen any evidence that the operation was carried out by Muslim fundamentalists, and though it may well be, I doubt that it’s tied to Al Qaeda.

If it was carrried out by Chechyns it was carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

The terrorist rigged various building supports with explosives, walked around with explosives strapped to their bodies and were heavily armed. They were demanding that Russia withdraw from Chechnya, which they knew wasn't going to happen. The same MO of the Russin theater situation. They probably chose a school because they thought the Russians wouldn't dare risk a rescue like the one at the theater (likely with the same results) if mostly children were involved. They went there with every intention of killing those children and themselves. Those children were dead as soon as the terrorists took control of the school. They were never going to be allowed to leave there alive. I don't see how the Russin military can be faulted for this.

We will hear complaints that the Russian special forces should have waited — even after the terrorists began shooting children. Negotiations are the heroin of Westerners addicted to self-delusion. Who among us would have waited when he or she saw fleeing children cut down by automatic weapons? The urge to protect children is as primal as any impulse we ever feel.

Make no mistake: No blame attaches to the Russians for the massacre at that school. The guilt is entirely upon the Islamic extremists who have led the religion they claim to cherish into the realms of nightmare.

From Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay. So if you can show that the Chechens wish to establish their own government with the consent of the governed, who wouldn't lose any further rights, then I'll believe that their cause is legitimate.  Otherwise, it's a moot point whether they are ruled by Russians or by other Chechens.

I should qualify what I said in my last post. If the Chechens aren't trying to establish a freer country (but just a different form of dictatorship), then it isn't a "moot point"--in that case, what they are doing is just plain murder. And given their methods, that would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should qualify what I said in my last post.  If the Chechens aren't trying to establish a freer country (but just a different form of dictatorship), then it isn't a "moot point"--in that case, what they are doing is just plain murder.  And given their methods, that would be my guess.

Well, even if they are trying to establish a freer country, terrorism is not justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the miserable showing of the Russian forces:

To begin with, find a picture of that school and take a good look at it. At the school building itself, not the activity around it. The first thing I noticed was that no child in the United States would be allowed into those buildings. As poor as some of our schools are, there are none as poor as that school.

Take a look at Russia's poorly paid, conscript forces. Notice how they are dressed? Do you ever remember seeing even a mid-sized city's police force so ill-equiped? Where is the protective gear, the communications systems, etc.? Do you think the system which produced this picture have put any money into the kind of training required to meet the situation they faced?

Most cities in this country have a swat team that could have out-performed anything Russia is capable of putting on the street for the protection of its citizens. This is an expression, not just of our desire to protect the population, but of the wealth of this country -- and everything that implies.

Contrast the kind of equipment and personel you see in any kind of disaster here in America, from the police cars, ambulances, fire fighting equipment, to the highly trained people using that equipment, to what you saw when you watched the horror in that school. The Russian forces are not all lazy, uncaring and apathetic. They all have families just like the ones tortured, raped, stabbed and murdered in that school. Do you honesty think that what they've been through is nothing to them? I am astonished that anyone could make such a cynical statement about people of whom nothing is known except that they are ill-trained and ill-equiped to do the job they've been given.

The Russian government deserves blame for thinking that where terrorism is concerned, they could have their cake and eat it too. I blame them for the years of double dealing with the various state sponsors of terrorism. I blame them for not joining us in the war against Islamism. The Russian people are reaping the harvest of their politics, a harvest of dead bodies.

The terrorists certainly deserve blame for the carefully planned torment and murder of hundreds of innocents.

The individuals who tried to save those people in that school do not deserve the blame for what happened.

We are not immune from attack in this country, of course. There is much room for improvement in guarding us against another horror like the one we've already experienced. However, look at those pictures again; then be very glad that you live in the United States of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's worst a semi-socialist cronyist state or an islamic fundamentalist state hell bent on the destruction of western civilization?

The people fighting for independence in Chechnyia are the same ones that are fighting the US in Iraq and the Israelis in Palestine. They have the same sick agenda.

If we look at the interest of the United States, it is better for Russia to control it then a Theocracy aligned with Iran, Syria, etc...

Just my humble opinion.

I totally agree with that.

But Putin needs to realize that himself and join the free world in its fight against terrorism.

He's been in denial for far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone:

Who are "Chechens"?

Why should one believe they "have a right to an independent country"?

Chechnya is a region in the northern Caucasus made up from a variety of clans. They are predominantly Sunni Muslim, though the spread of Saudi funded Wahhabism has been noted since the mid 1990’s.

I have found the book Hatred’s Kingdom by Dore Gold helpful in regard to finding more avenues to research religious backed terrorism/terrorist connections in Chechnya. (See pages 137-143)

Also, according to Bill Gertz book, Breakdown, US authorities had information prior to September 11, 2001 that Moussaui (the supposed 20th hijacker) was linked to a Chechen terrorist organization.

It appears to me that at one time there may have been a “just cause” for Chechen independence, which could have been similar to other previous Soviet territories. However, the “cause” has become similar to what occurred in Afghanistan.

Islamic law was established in Chechnya in the late 1990’s and since then the targets for terrorist activities against civilian populations in Chechnya as well as Russian on behalf of a “Chechen independence cause” has increased.

If Russia were to grant Chechen independence – I think it would be likely they would see another Taliban type driven government as their neighbor – operating freely with a degree of legitimacy. Such a move would be counter to their national security.

The question about discovering a method of deciding which peoples have a right to seek independence reminds me of a chapter I recently reviewed while researching the split in American society in Return of the Primitive. (See Global Balkanization – pages 189-204)

At this point I am not sure how to answer your question. The answer may in fact be simple, but the situation is complex. Is it possible to apply reasoned, attainable goals in situations and areas where freedom and capitalism are not necessarily full factors?

Along with that question – there needs to be absolutes defining terrorism by established governments internationally.

I see the world split in 3 ways – reason/understood free-will/capitalism vs. determinism/Marxism/collectivism vs. religious fanaticism/fascism - and in some areas – a combination of some of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dave Odden is asking precisely the right questions here. Terrorism and the massacre of innocents can never be excused. But the Russian government's crimes against the Chechen people far exceed anything Chechen secessionists have done. In the 1940s Stalin had half the Chechen population shipped in cattle cars to Central Asia, where 125,000 died in the frigid conditions. The current war has left 60,000 Chechen civilians dead. Were all of them potential terrorists?

We also must ask how trustworthy is the government of Vladimir Putin (himself a former KGB agent). In 1999, the current incarnation of the Russian secret police, the FSB, was caught planting bombs in a Moscow building in an apparent attempt to create public outrage against Chechnya. If the FSB could blow up a building, why not an airplane?

It is symptomatic of the insincerity of the "War on Terror" that the U.S. gives its blessings to Russia's brutal war on Chechnya, and continues to support Uzbekistan, an ugly little tyranny run by "ex"-Communist strongman Islam Karimov. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insi...eav022604.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dave Odden is asking precisely the right questions here.  Terrorism and the massacre of innocents can never be excused.  But the Russian government's crimes against the Chechen people far exceed anything Chechen secessionists have done.  In the 1940s Stalin had half the Chechen population shipped in cattle cars to Central Asia, where 125,000 died in the frigid conditions.  The current war has left 60,000 Chechen civilians dead.  Were all of them potential terrorists?

I'd agree with you if it were a known fact that Russia were still an oppressive, socialist state. But it's not any more. So what we have here is a scenario where the Muslim fundamentalists are waging war on a legitimized society, wreaking havoc.

We also must ask how trustworthy is the government of Vladimir Putin (himself a former KGB agent).  In 1999, the current incarnation of the Russian secret police, the FSB, was caught planting bombs in a Moscow building in an apparent attempt to create public outrage against Chechnya. If the FSB could blow up a building, why not an airplane?

It is symptomatic of the insincerity of the "War on Terror" that the U.S. gives its blessings to Russia's brutal war on Chechnya, and continues to support Uzbekistan, an ugly little tyranny run by "ex"-Communist strongman Islam Karimov. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insi...eav022604.shtml

I couldn't disagree more with this.

At least America begins to understand wh the enemy is in the War on Terror.

Russia needs to get with the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ENDS AND MEANS

“Do the ends justify the means?” was a question that pacifist Martin Luther King considered at great length in the civil rights movement. I am not – in any way – endorsing his pacifism or his mysticism or his egalitarianism…but will endorse the answer that Rev. King had to that question:

“The ends are the means in process.”

It is a profound statement on the metaphysical nature of action. Whether or not you ‘want’ to abide by this philosophical law, you will.

What kind of government; what kind of society; what kind of world were the Chechen separatists who attacked the school in Belisan fighting for.

Following Rev. King’s maximum, the question can be easily answered by a look at their means.

When the 32 rebels neared the town of Belisan on foot, two of their number objected to the choice of a school on the first day of class as the target. Their leader had them shot. Invading the school the rebels killed 20 mostly unarmed civilians who obstructed access to their children. Once inside the school, the leader would not allow any hostages to relieve themselves. When one of the rebels objected to the leader’s refusal to agree to Russian police demands to release children from among the 1200 hostages, she was shot dead in front of a large group of rebels and hostages. In the gymnasium, three rebels (who were engineering students) strung explosive charges from chain strung between the basketball rims in the center of the room. Three days later, the two of the rebel-'engineered' explosive charges detonated by accident (triggering the bloodbath). And -- my FAVORITE detail of the attack – the rebel leader demonstrated his ruthlessness by detonating remote control bombs that two of his own militiamen had strapped their bodies – adding to the shock value, the two disintegrating Chechens were young women. ( http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...ideo/index.html )

The ends are the means in process.

Any questions about _this_ kind of Chechen separatism?

Any questions about the wisdom of Russia allowing Chechnya to ‘peacefully’ separate and independently police up their own Islamist monsters free of ‘outside interference?’

I didn’t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with you if it were a known fact that Russia were still an oppressive, socialist state.  But it's not any more.  So what we have here is a scenario where the Muslim fundamentalists are waging war on a legitimized society, wreaking havoc.

I'm not sure that the 60,000 Chechens killed by the Russians in the past few years are resting in peace knowing that their murderers were not "oppressive socialists." Furthermore, why should we regard Putin and his gangsters as the "legitimized" authority over Chechnya -- any more than it was the rightful ruler of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

I couldn't disagree more with this.

At least America begins to understand wh the enemy is in the War on Terror.

Right. Saddam was evil because he killed "his own people" -- like the Kurds who want a separate country. And the Russians are our allies because they are killing Chechens who want a separate country. I'm sure all this makes sense to some mad genius in the State Department.

  And -- my FAVORITE detail of the attack – the rebel leader demonstrated his ruthlessness by detonating remote control bombs that two of his own militiamen had strapped their bodies – adding to the shock value, the two disintegrating Chechens were young women. 

Your point must be that since Chechens have killed hundreds of people, Chechnya must not be independent of Russia. On the other hand, the government of Russia, which has killed tens of thousands of people, would make an ideal ruler for the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point must be that since Chechens have killed hundreds of people, Chechnya must not be independent of Russia.  On the other hand, the government of Russia, which has killed tens of thousands of people, would make an ideal ruler for the region.

I don't think it's a good idea to put words into Jack's mouth if you wish to continue to post on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite their tactics, is there any validity to the cause of Chechen independence? I'm afraid I can't find much information on that aspect of the situation. From what little I've heard, it sounds like the Russian government under statist Putin oppresses the Chechens, and they have little in common with the rest of Russia. Of course this doesn't justify in any way the actions of the Chechen terrorists ... I'm just curious if the independence would be deserved if it was sought through proper, moral means of resistance.

Ive heard that the situation is almost the same as the one that was happening in Kosovo. Both Russia and the serbs are/were trying to solve the problem the same way,just getting rid of the whole population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should qualify what I said in my last post.  If the Chechens aren't trying to establish a freer country (but just a different form of dictatorship), then it isn't a "moot point"--in that case, what they are doing is just plain murder.  And given their methods, that would be my guess.

Given the FACT that Arabs were among the abductors and terrorists, I'd say that was a VERY educated guess.

It has been revealed that the Chechen rebels have sought support from their Arab & Muslim neighbors for years.

It's up to the Russians to view this situation for what it is, to face facts, and wage their own best war against the terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words such as "Terrorist" or "Muslim" will not be mentioned.

Somone made them mention it yesterday.

QUOTE (George W. Bush @ %5burl=http://www.whitehouse.gov" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov[/url)
]"I'm here to express my country's heart-felt sympathies for the victims and the families who suffered at the hands of the evil terrorists...," said President Bush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that this thread died out without any comment on Putin using the attack as an excuse for an unprecedented power grab. Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about Putin's political history, and I have been predicting precisely this sort of thing for some time now. And believe me, if he gets away with this (and he will), it'll only be the beginning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that this thread died out without any comment on Putin using the attack as an excuse for an unprecedented power grab.  Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about Putin's political history, and I have been predicting precisely this sort of thing for some time now.  And believe me, if he gets away with this (and he will), it'll only be the beginning...

Could you please explain more? I don't follow news all that much so this is new on me. Has he passed new laws or something?

Thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please explain more? I don't follow news all that much so this is new on me. Has he passed new laws or something?

Thanks in advance

Putin has moved to replace direct elections of regional leaders (governors and such) with approval by Putin-loyal regional legislatures of Putin-nominated leaders, among other changes. Do a quick google search and you should easily find more information. Just put in "Putin power grab" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
For anyone:

Who are "Chechens"?

Why should one believe they "have a right to an independent country"?

What I am asking about is method: first, the method for defining a "people"; and second a method for deciding whether a particular "people" has (have) a right to break away from one state and set up "their" own state.

I don't know what the method is for either, here.

Without such a method -- which implies some standard of judgment -- what is to stop the southern Chechens from breaking away from the rest of Chechnya, then the southwestern Chechens breaking away from Southern Chechnya, and so forth down to the level of single villages, each "sovereign"?

I agree with this, but, more succinctly: Those who don't believe in individual rights have no business claiming rights.

Claiming sovereignty is not equal to earning it.

I doubt ANY area (even, say, 50,000 sq ft of anyones choice) of the former soviet union has a majority or even a meaningful minority of people who grasp individual rights.

Part of the problem of being a dictatorship is that even when it falls - there is a lot of cleaning up to do. (An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Whoever formulated that idea first could have written all of the history books)

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I'm sure many of you will remember when Chechen rebels took over a theater in Moscow and held several hundred people captive. It is generally agreed on this board that, in combat situations, the government of a free nation has every right to target citizens of a non-free nation, if it will further the war effort.

The ethical dilemma in this situation is more complex, however. First of all, I realize that Russia isn't exactly free, but it is freer than the Chechen Islamists would like for it to be. The Russian government, in this situation, decided to gas the theater, killing many of its own innocent citizens inside. Since a government's responsibility is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force, I'm just wondering how some of you view this action.

My personal opinion is that what the Russian government did was highly moral. They were in a lose-lose situation and, had they not acted when they did, it was very likely that everyone in the theater would have died. As it stands, only about half of the hostages died, along with all of the terrorists. I imagine that most (if not all) of you will agree with me, but I have been surprised by some of your opinions before, so I won't be shocked if some people disagreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the Russian military has a habit of showing total disregard for the lives of hostages in these operations. One might excuse their lack of training and supplies on their communist past (if that is an excuse) but their actions also indicate that their goal is to kill all the terrorists, not save the hostages lives.

For example, in the case in question, virtually all the hostages died from the sleeping agent rather than the terrorists because the agent was chosen without regard for its lethal effect on civilians. Most or all the deaths were caused by suffocation in the poisonous agent because emergency personnel and breathing equipment was missing or unprepared.

They were in a lose-lose situation and, had they not acted when they did, it was very likely that everyone in the theater would have died.

Well, sure if they had just sealed the theater and let everyone starve to death, they would have died eventually too. But they had many other options they did not exercise. Given the fact that the Russian military has no training in hostage situations, they could have brought in U.S. advisors, or used a specialized government or private hostage situation squad. Instead, they brought in army regulars who only knew how to kill people – not save then.

By the way, its the Russian government's fault that they have made an enemy of out the Chechens – they have been butchering them en masse since Tzarist times, through the Communist era, and continue to do today. Russian politicians use the conflict to distract the public from internal problems at the cost of Chechen and Russian civilians.

There is another thread on this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1575

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I realize that Russia isn't exactly free, but it is freer than the Chechen Islamists would like for it to be.
This is really an aside, but do you know this to be true? Do the Chechens "happen to be muslim" or are they proposing a country based on Islam?

...had they not acted when they did, it was very likely that everyone in the theater would have died.
I'm not familiar with the case, so I'd like to know on what this is based. Every hostage taker threatens to kill their hostages. Not many actually do so. Did these hostage-takers start to kill hostages and were they showing clear intent to kill more? Were "negotiations" attempted and what was the result?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really an aside, but do you know this to be true? Do the Chechens "happen to be muslim" or are they proposing a country based on Islam?
Yes and no (depending on who you're speaking of). AFAIK, most Chechens are Muslim of some Sufi variety, which means that they are on the other end of the spectrum from the typical Wahhabite Islamist. However, the separatist movement is rife with Sharia-fanatics. It's kind of an object lesson for Objectivists thinking mistakenly that finding common cause with libertarians means we should support libertarian movements. The desire to be free and, in the Chechen context, to be free of Russian rule is perfectly normal. But Russia doesn't seem to want to let go, thus a liberation struggle. And what group is better positioned to step into the void than the Islamists? Unfortunately, this has been going on long enough that it's probably having a material (negative) effect on hearts and minds in Chechnya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that what the Russian government did was highly moral. 

Russia initially took control of Chechnya by focible invasion. In 1942, Stalin murdered 1/4 of the country's population, and exiled the rest to Kazakhstan, where they remained until after his death. They are now refusing to allow Chechnya to become an autonomous state, and even invaded the country 10 years ago when it seemed like the nationalist movement was growing. By what twisted standard can anything the Russian government does in the fight against the Chechnyans who are currently seeking independence from Russia be considered 'moral'?

"Terrorism" isnt always bad. If China were to invade Taiwan tomorrow, actions taken by Taiwanian 'terrorists' against China would be totally justified. The Chechnya situation is a complete mess, and its entirely Russia's fault. The fact that the Western media only chooses to report on the situation when the rebels fight back is disgusting.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really an aside, but do you know this to be true? Do the Chechens "happen to be muslim" or are they proposing a country based on Islam?

I'm not familiar with the case, so I'd like to know on what this is based. Every hostage taker threatens to kill their hostages. Not many actually do so. Did these hostage-takers start to kill hostages and were they showing clear intent to kill more? Were "negotiations" attempted and what was the result?

I dont think that any hostages were killed before the invasion, although the rebels killed some hostages after the troops were sent in. Also, Russia doesnt really have the same respect for human life than Western countries often claim to have, so it has no real problem with taking a hard "dont negotiate with terrorists" stance. Negotiations would have showed weakness, and may have encouraged similar incidents. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad thing.

It's hard to say exactly what happened, since the Russian government censored media coverage and ignored suggestions to carry out an investigation into what went on.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...