Quote Of The Day

[MMMMMM]

"Russia does not negotiate with terrorists, it annihilates them." --Vladimir Putin, Feb. 06, 2004

Vlad then went on to say:

"The universally recognized method of fighting terrorism is denying any negotiations with terrorists because any contact with them encourages committing new, bloodier crimes", Vladimir Putin said.

"Russia has not negotiated with terrorists and is not going to do this in future. This is a terrible ordeal for all the victims of this terrorist act and for all our country", President Putin said in the end of his negotiations with Azerbaijani Presedent Aliev in the Kremlin.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/350/11991_terrorism.html

I suspect if we had more world leaders like Bush and Putin, the Middle East would nearly be a terrorist-free zone by now, and the mad mullahs would be looking for other work /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[bigpooch]

I am starting to like Putin! /images/graemlins/smile.gif It would be interesting to
know the developments in the next few weeks. And of all
places, the subway must be the busiest on the planet and
surely the terrorists intended this for maximum civilian
casualties. Reminds you of some other acts of terrorism
not too long ago!

Declare war on terrorism, Vlad!

[sam h]

The Middle East would be just like Chechnya, with all its problems solved and everybody running around happily embracing terror-free democracy.

[MattHatter]

Don't forget that until 9/11 The US was constantly giving the Russians a hard time about the war in Chechnya. Accusing the russians of HUGE human rights violations.

The chechyns werent terrorists in your news then. They were freedom fighters fighting the evil opression of the Russian government, who was brutalizing the poor chechyns.

Then 9/11 and you need russian support so once again a TOTAL change of policy.. chechyns become terrorists, russians are just fighting the war on terror. This change in the media play of the story was one of the MOST frightening aspects of this dubious war on terror. Because it was so drastic.. and no one dare question the sudden change of US policy on this subject.

Who is and isn't a terrorist is a matter of convenience for the US. (I say they're all terrorists, anyone remember the contras? the Mujahadeen? Osama? CIA created em all, all terrorists)



Matt

[MattHatter]

Why is Pravda a joke in the other thread about syria... and it's no longer a propeganda tool of the Russians when what it says suits our needs?

Matt



I'm not suggesting that the chechyns do not use terrorist tactics.. this is undenyable, but we must not forget the russians have used what could easily be considered terrorist tactics against the independance minded civillian population of chechnya. Also remember that this heavy handedness on the part of russia was a FAAVORITE barb of the US vs. Russia on matters international when they needed to embarass the Russians... how the worm turns.. how the worm turns. You can buy silence you know /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

Not quite. Since that time the Chechen rebels have become more involved with al-Qaeda. Also since then horrific terror attacks have been exported to Moscow.

[andyfox]

Yessir, those Russians sure know how to do things efficiently.

[Taxman]

That's why Bush was elected after all, his conflict management abilities /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

Consider that they are facing a terrorist problem mingled with a secession conflict, which greatly complicates matters.

[jokerswild]

You obviously are not well read in the history of the crusades.

when Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he did not kil all it's inhabitants indiscriminantly like the Christians had. This made him somewhat more popular than the Christian rulers.

[MMMMMM]

And this has...what...to do with my post? Just wondering.

[andyfox]

So what makes you think they can handle that any better than they do less complicated things?

[MMMMMM]

"So what makes you think they can handle that any better than they do less complicated things?"

What makes you think I think they can handle that any better than they do less complicated things?

[jokerswild]

"Terrorism" is not cured by military might. When social conditions meet the expectations of the population, "Terrorism" ceases to be a problem. Sadly, you have a simple view of world politics in which might makes right. That's the same view the fascists held.

A study of the crusades, and Western history would do you good.

[MMMMMM]

"Terrorism" is not cured by military might. When social conditions meet the expectations of the population, "Terrorism" ceases to be a problem."

I disagree, because I believe terrorism is caused not by unmet social expectations, but rather by a totalitarian mindset and a lack of respect for human life.

That terrorism is not caused by unmet social expectations is evidenced by the fact that many societies have had severe unmet expectations yet did not turn to terrorism. Also, disaffected people have long existed in many societies. Most of these societies did not turn to terrorism. Example: the American Negro, who was cruelly oppressed in slavery for generations. Yet the American Negro did not turn to terrorism (perhaps an isolated few did, I don't know; but certainly they did not do so in large numbers or regularly). Thus is the erroneous notion refuted, by many such examples, that unmet social expectations constitute the primary cause of terrorism. Rather, terrorism flows from the sick mind which does not respect innocent human life and which will not accept compromise. Terrorism is fascist and totalitarian in nature. Terrorists are mentally deranged.

"Sadly, you have a simple view of world politics in which might makes right. That's the same view the fascists held."

No, I don't think that might makes right. However it is a good thing that, perhaps for the first time in history, the preponderance of power is seated firmly on the side of right. As King Arthur said centuries ago: Might For Right, not Might Makes Right. Gladly that day is drawing closer even now.

[bigpooch]

Mostly agree, but terrorism doesn't quite require a
totalitarian mindset. I very much liked your post and
basically agree, MMMMMM.

[Cyrus]

"_________ has not negotiated with terrorists and is not going to do this in future. This is a terrible ordeal for all the victims of this terrorist act and for all our country", President ________ said."

Things never change. First, an overwhelmingly stronger nation oppresses overwhelmingly a much smaller nation. Then, the oppressed is driven to the point whereby they start committing insane, desperate, criminal acts.

Thw world then is horrified with and condemns the desperate and criminal acts, aka terrorism, and rightly so. But the world, by this time, has forgotten what brought the situation to that horrible impasse.

You can substitute Russia vs Chechnya with Israel vs Palestinians and you will have the same murderous recipe. Very depressing.

[Cyrus]

"I believe terrorism is caused not by unmet social expectations, but rather by a totalitarian mindset and a lack of respect for human life."

In Czarist Russia, the state was of the totalitarian mindset and exhibited a colossal disregard for human life (of its subjects) while the regime's opponents, the so-called "liberals", used every means necessary to upend it. Including what was then called "terrorism". Why was that? Because they were left with no other option - no political expression was allowed, any dissent was brutally crushed, etc. The Russian anarchists and the other terrorists were wrong, of course, IMO, both in their means and their ideology but this is another matter : The point is you are wrong in setting in stone the terrorist mindset as you did.

On the other hand, Japan, after being defeated in WWII, did not resort to terrorism, even though Imperial Japan was far more autocratic and with far less respect for individual life than Czarist Russia! Why? Because Japan had specific "social (and national) exepctations", which were decent and fair. The United States would allow Japan back its sovereignty, while taking away only its colonies. There was no reason for the Japanese to resort to any kind of resistance, let alone terrorism.

You have a lot to catch up to before you are able to make sweeping generalizations.

"The American Negro did not turn to terrorism (perhaps an isolated few did, I don't know; but certainly they did not do so in large numbers or regularly)."

The African-Americans were never an organised and coherent group of people in America, until the middle of the Twentieth Century. Individual acts of (what you'd surely call) "terrorism", such as the brutal killing of the "master" and his family, did occur, but were isolated and sporadic.

Just like the slaves in Spartacus' time rebelled (and engaged in a number of "terrorist" atrtocities against their masters), the African-American slaves would have rebelled, under the appropriate social and historical circumstances. The water in Rome doesn't have any magical qualities, y'know.

But you are talking your way through "terrorist" this and "terrorist" that, without addressing the main case of terrorism in the modern western world. Any time you wanna try Ireland with me, and the Irish being (as you put it) "mentally deranged" say the word.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"What makes you think I think [the Russians] can handle that any better than they do less complicated things?"

Uh, maybe because you posted that you admire how the Russians are handling the more complicated thing of Chechen terrorism?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Thanks, bigpooch.

The reason I say terrorism requires a totalitarian mindset, in addition to a lack of respect for human life, is because terrorists typically are unwilling to compromise. It's their way or they'll go out and kill somebody.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I am not stating terrorism inevitably follows from a totalitarian mindset, but that a totalitarian mindset is pretty much a prerequisite for terrorism (whether state, group, or individual).

And yes, Cyrus, all IRA terrorists are necessarily mentally deranged.

It is a sub-human act for an adult to vent a killing rage against the innocent instead of against the actual oppressors. It is completely spiritually twisted and bankrupt. Anyone who does it has, spiritually speaking, left the realm of mankind and entered the realm of animals or devils, as it were. It is pure gratuitous depravity.

If suicide bombers selected as their targets only soldiers or military or political figures, their acts would not be nearly so heinous. But when instead they delight in targeting the innocent for purposes of terror, they sink below the lowest forms of humanity and, for all intents and purposes, enter the realm of evil and depraved spirits.

Some people would never sink so low no matter what. Maybe they are the only ones truly worthy of the form in which they were born (the human form, that is).

[MMMMMM]

No, Cyrus, I didn't post that.

[MMMMMM]

The battle over secession is one thing. Targeting innocents for political purposes is another. "A" could exist without "B" if some the participants were not so depraved.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
When social conditions meet the expectations of the population, "Terrorism" ceases to be a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And just what are 'the expectations of the population'? And from were are these expectations derived? And what is the measure that they have been meet? If not meet (fully or otherwise) then why the resort to 'terrorism'? Are you implying that all other avenues have been foreclosed to meet expected social conditions (whatever that means and however narrowly or broadly defined)? Does a person with a civilized outlook to the human condition resort to terrorism?

I think your initial statement lacks merit for serious consideration without some more definitive input.

[ QUOTE ]
A study of the crusades, and Western history would do you good.


[/ QUOTE ]

A better way to say this, in my opinion, is:

A study of all of human history would do everyone a bit of good. Do not intentionally but blinders on yourself.

-Zeno

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You can substitute Russia vs Chechnya with Israel vs Palestinians and you will have the same murderous recipe. Very depressing.

You forgot Sherman's march to the sea. Oh, wait, that was a politically correct annihilation of seccessionists. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[andyfox]

"I suspect if we had more world leaders like Bush and Putin, the Middle East would nearly be a terrorist-free zone by now"

[MMMMMM]

andy you are not being clear enough for me. Maybe I am having trouble understanding what mean because "that" and "less complicated things" are undefined in your post, and there may be more than one way to look at it.

My point is that if more leaders (past, present and future), had taken and would take much more aggressive actions against terrorism (in line with Bush's and Putin's attitudes against terrorism), terrorism might be greatly reduced in the Middle East before too long.

[Cyrus]

"All IRA terrorists are necessarily mentally deranged."

The IRA had not just murdered innocent men, women and children (in the sense that the victims were not directly involved in the "troubles"). The IRA was mostly involved in the killing of British soldiers, RUC uniformed men, Irish members of the opposite Protestant/pro-British factions, etc. Those killings were conducted in the usual urban guerilla style - i.e. bombing, assasination, etc.

Yet, every single IRA member was considered a "terrorist" by the British - and the world in general (the Americans at one time had the IRAq officially as a terrorist organisation).

News update : The IRA political wing, Sinn Fein, is invited to participate in the government of Northern Ireland.

...As to your assertion that the suicide bombers "delight" in killing innocents, it doesn't survive scrutiny. There can be no rational person that "delights" in killing himself along with his "enemies". Much as we deplore and condemn the killing of innocent people (and forgetting for a minute that the world grieves more the Israeli innocents than the --more numerous-- Palestian innocents), we cannot for a minute ignore how those people have sank to the point of utter desperation that is suicide (along with the bombing).

But that's how the world turns, on the whim of the strong. Today, the strong are the Israelis (since the U.S. permits them that) and the Palestinians are the Jews.

People who observe the situation and who choose to ignore this basic premise, i.e. the very strong imbalance of power, cannot convincingly call themselves advanced thinkers (or advantage players).

[ThaSaltCracka]

Why is Pravda a joke in the other thread about syria... and it's no longer a propeganda tool of the Russians when what it says suits our needs?
the same quote from Putin was everywhere, Pravda still sucks.

[Gamblor]

As to your assertion that the suicide bombers "delight" in killing innocents, it doesn't survive scrutiny. There can be no rational person that "delights" in killing himself along with his "enemies".

True. So when a bomber's videotape of his last night on earth is broadcast all over the Middle East on television, is it any wonder he's announcing his pride and excitement to become a "martyr"? He is not sad or crying that he will miss his family. He is not scared. He is proud, happy, and ready to murder. And his mother often exhibits the same pride. Desperation, I'm sure.

Much as we deplore and condemn the killing of innocent people (and forgetting for a minute that the world grieves more the Israeli innocents than the --more numerous-- Palestian innocents)

You have yet to explain how numbers alone prove the higher moral standing of Palestinians, naturally forgetting that a significant percentage of the Arab death toll includes those murdered by Arafat's henchmen, other terrorist groups for "collaborating with Israel", and in bomb-making accidents.

Today, the strong are the Israelis (since the U.S. permits them that) and the Palestinians are the Jews

Your insinuation that Jews are traditionally weak speaks volumes. Like I've said, you're happy to ignore a Jew as long as he shuts up and sits in the corner, but the second he asserts himself, you're out in full force against him.

People who observe the situation and who choose to ignore this basic premise, i.e. the very strong imbalance of power, cannot convincingly call themselves advanced thinkers (or advantage players).

In fact, the very fact that Israel has all this power and there is a single Arab still alive proves that Israel is the moral superior.

[Gamblor]

Rather, terrorism flows from the sick mind which does not respect innocent human life and which will not accept compromise. Terrorism is fascist and totalitarian in nature. Terrorists are mentally deranged.

That is the key to the whole thing: That terrorists are murdering civilians is ipso facto proof of a necessary belief that their targets are equally guilty as their military enemies, and that all of the potential targets are homogeneous. This necessarily requires the fascist, totalitarian ideology of "us" vs. "them", as opposed to a "me" vs. "you" vs. "the next guy" vs. "the other guy". In other words: they do not approve of the individual as the social unit and thus responsibility for enemy actions lies with the whole, not the individual.

That all modern Israeli military actions are concerned with individuals - even demolitions of terrorists' houses, assassinations, and arrest missions - betrays that the social unit in Israeli society is the individual, and that liberty and responsibility for that liberty is left to the individual.

[MMMMMM]

"As to your assertion that the suicide bombers "delight" in killing innocents, it doesn't survive scrutiny"

They definitely do delight in it. They long to reach Paradise and the 72 dark-eyed virgins. Watch the PA TV clip, please. And when a suicide bomber has a successful mission, Palestinians rejoice, even if that bombber killed three families instead of some soldiers. A really good suicide bombing is cause enough for Festival in Gaza.

"There can be no rational person that "delights" in killing himself along with his "enemies"."

Exactly, which supports my point that suicide bombers are irrational. You aren't claiming they are rational, are you Cyrus?

[ACPlayer]

and the Palestinians are the Jews.

Perfectly said.

The Palestinian Ghetto surrounded by jack booted storm troopers ramming their tanks into the walls of defenseless houses. Caged in with passes, gates, and walls and at the whim of an uncaring hostile ruler. An exterminate them from the planet mind set. Our kind is chosen to be the better one and the ruler of the (planet?) kingdom.

The irony is almost complete.

The tragedy is huge.

[MMMMMM]

"and the Palestinians are the Jews."

The Jews never stooped to religious glorification of suicide bombing, or to its related depravities.

In Nazi Germany, did the Jews start murdering German families? Their babies? Surely they could have managed to do some very serious damage before they were all hauled off to the camps had they wanted to. But they were not SICK and DEPRAVED like the wide swath of Palestinian society which supports suicide bombing of innocents, and believes in cult-like nonsense regarding Martyrdom and 72 virgins, etc.

If anything, the Jews in Germany had more reason than the Palestinians today to believe in cult-like nonsense and, in desperation, to lash out at their oppressors asnd their oppressors' children. BUT THEY DIDN'T. Why? Well partly because the Nazis were efficiently brutal--but the Jews still could have killed many families had they decided to before it was all over. The Jews were were morally superior *and not in the grip of a religious death-cult like the Palestinians). I doubt they would have danced in the streets with glee had one of their number managed to slaughter a German girl and her family at a birthday party.

If the Palestinians today held Israel's power and the situations were reversed in Israel, who thinks that the Palestinians would not have already slaughtered all the Jews? Or what would the Arabs have done had they won the wars with Israel several decades ago?

The moral false equivalences on this forum are disgusting, and a testament to the inability of people to think straight.

Sometimes one side simply is MORE MORAL than the other...and it isn't close.

[ACPlayer]

Your inability to think straight is huge.

Your inwillingness to condemn the Israeli actions is one sided.

Your unwillingness to accept my condemnation of both sides is indicative of a closed mind.

Your inability to realize that the person with the power must be more willing to give to the weak is immoral.

Your lack of knowledge is monumental.

None of the above examples of closed minded bigotry is close and they are all disgusting.

[MMMMMM]

Not one of your statements in the above post is true. And condemning both sides equally when both are not equally culpable, and both are not equally immoral, is flawed.

[andyfox]

My point was that in quoting Putin, you're asserting that he has something to offer of value on the issue. Judging by the sorry state of Russia, both in general and in dealing with "terrorists," I would be hesitant to take his advice.

[MMMMMM]

"My point was that in quoting Putin, you're asserting that he has something to offer of value on the issue."

More to offer than the U.N., anyway.

At least he killed those terrorists who held the people in that theatre hostage a while back.

"Judging by the sorry state of Russia, both in general and in dealing with "terrorists," I would be hesitant to take his advice."

Not especially relevant. Russia has long been beset by problems, but Putin inherited most of them (or at least their underlying causes).