Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on the russian school & theater fiasco?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In all the coverage I have read or seen the 'unbiased' news media keeps up its facade of "objectivity" and so all we hear about are "Chechen rebels", "militants", "hotstage-takers", "separatists" or "insurgents". If the worst happens and many children are murdered you can rest assured the blame will be put on the Russian military.

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

There are some days when I just want to scream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One needs to stay tuned to this ever-unfolding story, as it seems the Russians were successful in freeing the hostages and are now in hot pursuit of the Chechen insurgents.

But why not call them "terrorists?"

Russia will somehow have to deal with this problem. After all, it's not going away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Words such as "Terrorist" or "Muslim" will not be mentioned.

There are some days when I just want to scream.

The agnostic thinks he's safely avoiding a choice, and safe from the accusation of being wrong, by abstaining from claiming whether or not God exists. But he miscalculates. Failing to choose in this case is the choice not to know; it's the choice to remain outside the realm of right and wrong, the choice to abandon his mind. The wrongest of the wrong.

Any debater may think he's being fair by allowing his opponent to make arbitrary assertions, and not rejecting them out of hand. He makes the same miscalculation. By accepting and attempting to refute or in any way deal rationally with the arbitrary, he accepts the premise that knowledge has no connection to existence. He thereby incapacitates reason, and removes himself and his opponent from the realm of justice, making any kind of fairness impossible. This is the height of unfairness, primarily to himself, but also to his opponent.

The 'agnostic' media makes this same miscalculation. By failing to identify the evil nature of these murderous animals - as if there could possibly be some context in which terrorizing defenseless young children would be just - they think they are being unbiased. They think that by refusing to identify any "good guys" or "gad guys", they are safe from the accusation of "choosing sides". But by demonstrating this refusal to make moral judgement they advocate the removal of the only weapon any good guys would have - reason - giving powerful support to the evil, and reveal thereby their bias.

In the short run, this kind of clandestine support for evil increases sales of their information; gets them "more stories". In the long run, their common sense motivates consumers to seek alternative sources of information, and perminently brands this scum as the fear-mongering, hatred-promoting vermon that they are. Just look at the extreme measures they are trying to use to maintain their viewership.

Don't give them the satisfaction of your screams - especially within the sanctuary of your own mind. Just walk away. Find another source for your information. Subscribe to the Intellectual Activist Daily .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't give them the satisfaction of your screams - especially within the sanctuary of your own mind. Just walk away. Find another source for your information. Subscribe to the Intellectual Activist Daily .

All well and good. I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of today's politically correct media. They are such god damn cowards that they wont even use the term 'Moslem' for fear of being branded racist.

I'll never forget the first time I heard an audio cassette of Ayn Rand. During the question period she was asked her view of the Middle East. She referred to the Arabs as "savages" and said that they were nomads and represented the most "primitive" form of civilization. I fell in love with her from that moment on.

That lady had guts.

And oh by the way, as for the naked news ladies; I kinda like the idea. Hell, if you're going to bore me with the same old stale statist crap, at least give me some good looking T&A to hold my attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And oh by the way, as for the naked news ladies; I kinda like the idea. Hell, if you're going to bore me with the same old stale statist crap, at least give me some good looking T&A to hold my attention.

Since you're here, you probably don't need to be reminded, but poison hidden in a delightful delicacy - ir- or anti-rationalism fed to your unconscious mind while your conscious mind is being delighted by nubile young ladies - is still deadly. Don't forget to turn off the sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In all the coverage I have read or seen the 'unbiased' news media keeps up its facade of "objectivity" and so all we hear about are "Chechen rebels", "militants", "hotstage-takers", "separatists" or "insurgents". If the worst happens and many children are murdered you can rest assured the blame will be put on the Russian military.

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

There are some days when I just want to scream.

The following AP story suggests that they are Muslim terrorists working for the independence of Chechnya:

Russians Storm School; 150 May Be Dead

Link to post
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite their tactics, is there any validity to the cause of Chechen independence?

Chechnya was an independent nation until the mid 18th century when it was subdued by the Russian Empire. When the empire collapsed, Chechnya became independent again but Stalin managed to jerk them back under Soviet control in 1936. The Russians have never managed to control Chechnya. The puzzle is why Chechnya was not given its independence at the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan (the list does on) were all given their independence. There is no argument for Russian domination (it's not as though Russia is a great freedom-loving nation), so the cause of Chechen independence is completely valid. At the same time, it's quite possible that Chechnya will go the way of Belarus, but I think that's for the residents of Chechnya to sort out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chechnya was allowed to separate today, I'd have no doubt that the fundy muslims would attempt to wipe out all the Christians in the area.

150-200 dead. 600 injured. I wish more leaders would realize that fundamentalist Islam is the single greatest threat to Western civilization (it is not my intent to be hyperbolous).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its awfullly tough to murdet a hundred children and call it self defense, even if you do have legitimate greivances.

Seems to me that if we need to kill 100 children in Iraq or Iran or wherever Islamic Fundamentalists hide out (mosques, schools, hospitals, etc.) to bomb the leaders of that movements then it would be well worth it.

Would you say the free western world's grievances against it greatest enemy aren't legitimate enough to warrant that action as self defense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the Chechens have a right to support an independent country?

If they do, then they are legitimate, if they don't they are terrorists. I think if it is an act of self-defence then it could be considered legitimate.

This is profoundly confused. Chechens have a right to an independent country (and the right to support the creation of one). Despite the propoganda that you may see coming out of the Russian press, Chechens are not terrorists. There are terrorists who are Chechen (just as there are terrorists who are Arab, Serb, German, American and so on). Their acts of terrorism are not legitimate, and that cannot be considered legitimate. Hint: the ends do not justify the means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the Chechens have a right to support an independent country?

If they do, then they are legitimate, if they don't they are terrorists. I think if it is an act of self-defence then it could be considered legitimate.

Whether they have the right to support an independent country or not, it certainly does not justify the killing of 150-200 innocent men half of which are children who have never attempted any harm and never initiated the use of physical force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Chechens have a right to an independent country (and the right to support the creation of one). ...

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"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Words such as "Terrorist" or "Muslim" will not be mentioned.

I heard a brief news report on a Hungarian radio station today and was pleasantly surprised to hear them actually refer to the terrorists as terrorists! They used the word several times within a couple of sentences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are "Chechens"?

They are an ethnic group, related to the Ingush (in fact, the former independent nation was the Chechen-Ingush Republic) and the Batsi (the group is known as the Nakh). The relation is similar to e.g. the relation of the Germans, Dutch, Swedes and Norwegians. They live in a particular geographical area (called "Chechnya").

Why should one believe they "have a right to an independent country"?
If you are asking why they have the right to be free of Russian rule, you're arbitrarily presupposing that Russia has the right to rule that region. Russia has the same right to rule over Chechnya as Russia had to rule Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukrainia, Armenia, Georgia ... namely none. It is no different that the right of Jews to establish an independent country.

What I am asking about is method: first, the method for defining a "people"

Which doesn't matter, because the right to be free does not stem from being "a people". It is of course historically relevant when a regime engages in ethnic politics, such as the Chinese practice of trying to wipe the Tibetans off the face of the earth, or Stalin's deportation of the Chechens to Central Asia. Ethnic oppression is not an unfamiliar aspect of Russian politics.

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.

The consent of the governed, and no loss of rights, are the basic requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me that if we need to kill 100 children in Iraq or Iran or wherever Islamic Fundamentalists hide out (mosques, schools, hospitals, etc.) to bomb the leaders of that movements then it would be well worth it.

That's right. The difference is that the Chechens didn't need to kill these children to defend themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no argument for Russian domination (it's not as though Russia is a great freedom-loving nation), so the cause of Chechen independence is completely valid.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is profoundly confused. Chechens have a right to an independent country (and the right to support the creation of one). Despite the propoganda that you may see coming out of the Russian press, Chechens are not terrorists. There are terrorists who are Chechen (just as there are terrorists who are Arab, Serb, German, American and so on). Their acts of terrorism are not legitimate, and that cannot be considered legitimate. Hint: the ends do not justify the means.

Sorry, for my second paragraph I meant "Chechen Militants".

What I meant in my question to be was, would a nation-state of Chechnya be secular? Rights respecting? Tolerant of the Christians? Or are individuals granted better rights under Russia? I assume this is the issue which has to be determined before supporting either side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I meant in my question to be was, would a nation-state of Chechnya be secular? Rights respecting? Tolerant of the Christians? Or are individuals granted better rights under Russia? I assume this is the issue which has to be determined before supporting either side.

Those would be exactly the right questions to consider. I think the answer would prove to be "you can't rationally support either side".

Link to post
Share on other sites
...The consent of the governed, and no loss of rights, are the basic requirements.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Official said that most victims died in the school's gymnasium on Friday, either from the explosions that brought down the roof - mined by the hostage-takers - or in the battles between soldiers and captors that followed.

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.

Link to post
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...