Your thoughts on the russian school & theater fiasco?

[DavidV]

"Terrorism" isnt always bad.

Actually, it is. Terrorism is the use of violence as a tool of terror to achieve some political means. As such, it is directed primarily at innocent civilians, not military objectives. If the Taiwanese were to resists a Chinese occupation, that would be military resistance not terrorism.

[The Wrath]

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.

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.

The Chechen militants made it clear (and explicitly said so) that their intention was not really to secure the Russian withdrawl from Chechnya, but to kill all of the hostages and to die with them, to please Allah. The leader of the group explicitly said this up on the stage where all the hostages could hear. They also made it clear that any attempt to rescue the hostages would cause them to set off all the explosives.

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.

True though this may be, I don't see it as an excuse to hijack a theater full of innocent civilians and hold them hostage.

[The Wrath]

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.

It seems that you're holding today's Russia responsible for the sins of Stalin and cronies. Let's say that we invaded Mexico and annexed it. In the year 2105, the current Americans would not be at fault and it would be immoral for the Mexicans to bring a militant fight to innocent Americans.

The Palestinians are also seeking independence. I know the situation is somewhat different because of the Palestinians' desire to eliminate the state of Israel, but by your reasoning, they should at least be given a separate state. The question of how the conflict began, historically, is no longer of consequence, because the people involved in the takeover are all dead.

[The Wrath]

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.

Actually, there were some killed long before the Russian military intervened. I can't remember exactly how it happened, but I know that the militants dragged someone out of the theater into the hallway and executed them.

[DavidV]

Moose, I think you completely missed my point. Think about this: would it have been “highly moral” to just nuke the theater? Why or why not?

[The Wrath]

No, b/c that would have accomplished nothing. You mentioned that it seemed as though the Russians were trying to kill the terrorists, rather than rescue the hostages, but this isn't entirely true. The gas that was used was chosen because they hoped it would just put everyone to sleep, then they could get the hostages out, and properly deal with the terrorists. They knew that there would probably be some casualties, but they didn't really have any other options. All the other possible courses of action would have almost certainly led to the death of everyone in the theater.

I also think your idea of bringing in experienced negotiators is flawed. First of all, they had negotiators. In at least one instance, they even offered to bring up a high-ranking military official to negotiate with the group's leader. They also secured the release of the pregnant women in the theater. The leader of the group got on stage and explicitly said that their intention was to become martyrs and kill everyone in the theater; they knew that the Russians would not pull out of Chechnya. There is no way negotiations would have worked.

What other options do you think they had?

[Hal]

It seems that you're holding today's Russia responsible for the sins of Stalin and cronies.  Let's say that we invaded Mexico and annexed it.  In the year 2105, the current Americans would not be at fault and it would be immoral for the Mexicans to bring a militant fight to innocent Americans.

The sins of current Russia is not connected to Stalin, but to their refusal to grant Chechnya independence (and their recent invasion of the country). The Stalin murders are afaik the reason why current Chechnyans feel hostile towards Russia and seek independence, and this seems reasonable to me.

The Palestinians are also seeking independence.  I know the situation is somewhat different because of the Palestinians' desire to eliminate the state of Israel, but by your reasoning, they should at least be given a separate state.  The question of how the conflict began, historically, is no longer of consequence, because the people involved in the takeover are all dead.

The Palestine situation is more complicated than the Chechnya one because of the means by which Israel acquired the land, but I would say that as a general principle any reasonably sized group of people localised to a particular area of land has the right to declare independence of its host country if that country is oppressive.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that (...) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

[The Wrath]

I don't disagree with the idea that Chechnya should be given independence, as long as the Chechens wouldn't set up a Sharia dictatorship, which is what many of them would try to do.

However, the innocent people in that theater have nothing to do with Russia's continued occupation of Chechnya and the people who took them hostage are nothing less than evil. I don't see what other choice the Russian government had.

[Hal]

However, the innocent people in that theater have nothing to do with Russia's continued occupation of Chechnya and the people who took them hostage are nothing less than evil.

But isnt this just the familiar question of the moral status of 'innocents' in war? I'm not sure why this is essentially different from the fate of the 'innocents' in Dresden, Hiroshima, or Iran if the US were to nuke it tomorrow.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Hal

[The Wrath]

A less-free nation does not have any right to attack the citizens of a more-free nation. The people who hijacked the Russian theater were not freedom-fighters who seek independence from Russia so that they can set up a Constitutional Republic; they were radical Islamists who wish to implement Sharia law. Thus, any attack that they make, whether against civilian or military targets, is evil and entirely unjustified.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Moose

[AisA]

But isnt this just the familiar question of the moral status of 'innocents' in war? I'm not sure why this is essentially different from the fate of the 'innocents' in Dresden, Hiroshima, or Iran if the US were to nuke it tomorrow.

Good question. I think the distinction is this: Killing civilians in an attack on an immoral regime is acceptable. Killing civilians instead of attacking an immoral regime is murder.

[The Wrath]

Nonetheless, Russia is freer than a government that would exist under the Chechen rebels who sieged the theater. Can we not agree on this?

[DavidV]

Nonetheless, Russia is freer than a government that would exist under the Chechen rebels who sieged the theater.  Can we not agree on this?

I don't think this is relevant, but the answer is that we don't know. I mean, the Russian government has killed dozens of millions of people, and continues to pillage millions, and is moving towards the murderous regime is once was. In terms of scale, the Chechens are small fry. On the other hand, we have no idea what sort of regime Chechnya would have if they weren't occupied by waves of Russian troops.

[DavidV]

I also think your idea of bringing in experienced negotiators is flawed.

It may be flawed, but it's not my idea. Did you read my post?

What other options do you think they had?

If you read my post, I think they are clear enough. It's pretty obvious how bloody incompetent and brutal the “rescuers” are if you compare the typical Russian hostage situation with those in other nations. The point is that the thugs running Russia have never cared how many millions of innocent people die to achieve their political ends.

Edited August 29, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[Hal]

Good question.  I think the distinction is this:  Killing civilians in an attack on an immoral regime is acceptable.  Killing civilians instead of attacking an immoral regime is murder.

It's not clear what other options they had available. If their reasoning was something like "the only way Russia will give us independence is if we show them that it is in their best interest to do so, by killing Russian civilians until they agree let us go", would the theatre attack not be considered an attack on Russia? A country is just a group of people - how can you attack a country in a way that transcends attacking the people that live in it? Was Hiroshima an attack on an immoral regime or was it just an attack on the civilians who lived in the immoral regime? I'm not sure this question even makes sense.

Edited August 29, 2005 by Hal

[fatdogs12]

It's not clear what other options they had available. If their reasoning was something like "the only way Russia will give us independence is if we show them that it is in their best interest to do so, by killing Russian civilians until they agree let us go", would the theatre attack not be considered an attack on Russia? A country is just a group of people - how can you attack a country in a way that transcends attacking the people that live in it? Was Hiroshima an attack on an immoral regime or was it just an attack on the civilians who lived in the immoral regime? I'm not sure this question even makes sense.

Man this is one of the most interesting threads that I have read here since I have been comming. I have been saying this for a while now esp. since Bush has been lumping in the Chechen rebels in the same category as Al Qaida. This point specifically though I would really like to understand because assuming for a second that the Chechen rebels took the theater hostage for freedom purposes why is that wrong? To me it seems like the exact same thing as Hiroshima. I mean in a way I view it as a good thing for them to attack civialins (though I admit I could be wrong on this) because if thier continued to attack the russian military they won't get anything. Russia (as pathetic a country as it is) out numbers the Chechens in pretty much every category (guns, funding, troops).

To me I agree with GreedyCap. as well, Russia is going back down the road it came from, taking away rights and just making itself a totalitarian regime. I just don't see how the Chechens shoulder anything immoral for those hostages. Maybe thier only mistake was actually assuming that Russia actually cared about it's citizens.

I mean the US could have dropped nukes on Japans military targets right? So considering that does that mean that the US commited murder? I can't see how and ditto for the Chechens.