Warning: very disturbing graphic images at first link:
The photos coming out of Russia are impossible to describe. 100 are reportedly dead. As von noted below, Stan of Logic & Sanity is providing the most phenomenal coverage of this unspeakable violation of human decency.
I had to post this, but I can’t bring myself to comment.
O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who takest of Thine own unto Thine own;
Who hast said, All souls are Mine, and Who callest them and keepest them till the day of Resurrection;
Thyself, O Master, deliver the souls of Thy servants [names may be inserted] ,
whom Thou hast taken to Thyself, from every action of the enemy power;
set as guides for them, Angels of peace; propitiously grant them to see Thy countenance;
overlook their misdeeds in this life, whether voluntary or involuntary;
make them worthy of the portion of Thy Saints and establish them in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Thy righteous ones, whence grief, distress, wailing and gnashing of teeth have fled;
and for us, arrange all things as is good and pleasing unto Thee.
For Thou art a good God and lovest mankind, and to Thee do we send up glory: to the FAther, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
(link)
beautiful comment Moe…
This is horrific, awful, sadistic.
It’s also nuts, even from the point of view of the Chechen rebels. If you look at the terrorist/rebel movements (e.g. the ANC, Irgun, and, to a lesser extent, the Provisional IRA), they kept a division between so-called legitimate targets and innocents, or aimed for economic targets, as striking at innocents would actually weaken their cause (c.f. the Warrington or Enniskillen bombing by the IRA, which as well as being horrific slaughters were counterproductive to the IRA’s aims). There’s no hope for Chechen autonomy or independence after this.
In 1991, the speaker of the Russian parliament (Khasbulatov) was a Chechen; so the Chechens then had an influence beyond the size of their population which they have long since lost. After this, any Chechen in Moscow will be doing well not to be lynched in the streets tonight.
Those interested might want to check out the IWPR’s reporting on the conflict in the Caucasus region:
http://www.iwpr.net/caucasus_index1.html
(Nothing up yet about the horrible end of the school hostage crisis, but their reporting is amongst the best.)
Does anyone know what triggered the Russian move? By all accounts the attack looks unplanned, which suggests that something happened to cause the Russians to move quickly. Does anyone know what that was?
Seb-
European press reports I’ve read suggest that Special Forces moved in after several hostages attempted to escape. The escape attempt either followed or preceeded an explosion in the school.
Has anyone explained why the children are all in their underwear or naked? Is there any sanity left in this world?
Stan’s translations suggest the terrorists were killing hostages just before they went in.
It may not seem like much, but there are ways to help.
I’ve heard that Russian forces were removing bodies – either on foot or with a vehicle – and the terrorists (for such they are) opened fire. Some children took advantage of the situation to escape, and they were fired on by the terrorists, prompting the storming of the building by Special Forces.
Ok.
1) Tom, if you want to compare chechens terrorists to other terrorism groups, you should compare them to Al Qaeda. In fact they are part of that network. The fact that 9 of the dead rebels are Arabs is telling.
2) Sebastian, terrorists shot 20 male hostages. Also, 2 female suicide bombers exploded in the hallway which male hostages in it. Male terrorists said that their “sisters” are “victorious” after this act took place.
3) Mad Az, small children were naked, and many women wer half naked, because of the heat. 1,000+ people were put in the school’s gym and were basically on top of one another (according to hostages themselves). Terrorists even had to break the gym’s windows to allow more air in.
Not to excuse the terrorists, but I think the Russian govt deserves some contempt today because this is in part a consequence of its war crimes in Chechnya. Two wrongs don’t make a right – wrongs make more wrongs.
Fundamentalist terrorist on one side, Russian security forces on the other, there was no way this was going to end well…
rilkefan,
Probably. But it’s not a great time to argue about it.
rilkefan,
…but following that logicn one might say (Not to excuse the gov’t) that chechens deserve contempt, because gov’t war crimes, in part, are consequence of Chechen’s crimes aginst the people of Russia. ie, mass kidnappings for ransom, cutting off ears, heads., etc.
Attacking Dagestain in August of 1999 after they had their de facto independence.
Once one starts making excuses (with the usual disclaimer “not to excuse… but…”), its easy to counter them with other excuses.
And anyway, this wasn’t an attack on the gov’t. It wasn’t even an attack on the ethnic russians, Osetians are mountain people just like the Chechens are.
“1) Tom, if you want to compare chechens terrorists to other terrorism groups, you should compare them to Al Qaeda. In fact they are part of that network. The fact that 9 of the dead rebels are Arabs is telling.”
That’s what I’m puzzled about. The Chechens supposedly have a specific goal (Chechen independence) rather than the millenial apocalyptic fantasies of ultrafundamentalists like Al Qaeda.
Terrorists [or Rebels, if you want to use that term] like ETA or the IRA or Irgun or Umkounto We Seuize (sp?) that have the aim of “national liberation”, tended to use terror operations “discriminately” – i.e. avoiding actions that would provoke too large of a backlash against them.
So this is a bizarre strategy for the Chechens to throw in their lot with Al Qaeda. Any Russian politicians or foreign governments or previously sympathetic to the Chechen’s plight (and, just for the record, I’m not sympathetic to Chechen independence) are going to sit on their hands to whatever response Putin makes, however brutal. If there is ever Chechen independence, this act has set it back 20 years.
“And anyway, this wasn’t an attack on the gov’t. It wasn’t even an attack on the ethnic russians, Osetians are mountain people just like the Chechens are.”
Reports before the explosions were that Ossetians and Russians were also part of the hostage-takers.
They also had two dogs in case the security forces used the fentanyl sleeping-gas trick again.
Stan: “…but following that logicn one might say (Not to excuse the gov’t) that chechens deserve contempt…”
I do think the (inexperienced) Chechen govt. of 1991/2 or 1994/5? bears some blame for brinksmanship, mistakes, and crimes, as do individual Chechens who committed crimes and terrorist acts before the Russian counterreaction. But (perhaps out of ignorance) I don’t find that the Chechen wrongs of that period (that I’m aware of) can be weighed in the same scale as destroying a country. Comparing evil is probably a fool’s game, but from my viewpoint the Russians committed unbearable atrocities and the Chechens responded with unbearable atrocities, and along with the righteous condemnation of the latter should come some remembrance of the former.
All of the above is just stupid of course if as you suggest this wasn’t aimed at Russia.
The Chechens supposedly…
Right. Freedom fighters. Like Arafat.
Chechens had de facto independence until August of 1999 when Basayev attacked Dagestan (in order to unite it with Chechnya and create 1 islamic state under Sharia). Wahhabism is not the brand of Islam that Chechen traditonally practice. It began to appear in early 90’s (just like Balkans). Basayev, the “rebel” leader, became a Wahhabi somewhere around that time.
rilke,
I do think the (inexperienced) Chechen govt. of 1991/2 or 1994/5
They basically clensed ethnic Russians (and basically all other non Chechens) out of Grozni in 1991-1992. Many were killed, those who could ran (many left property behind). The gov’t turn a blind eye while it was happening.
I am not so sure if Russians destroyed the “country”, they did destroy Grozni however after loosing many men when trying to take it with ground forces.
In any case, Chechens should be blaming Basayev for attacking Dagestain in 1999.
Stan, who should we blame for the 1999 apt bombing, the excuse (I thought) for the virulence of the counterreaction?
Anyway, probably I’ve detoured this mourning thread more than enough now.
“The Chechens supposedly…
Right. Freedom fighters. Like Arafat.”
Don’t put words into my mouth, Stan, and I won’t do the same to you.
I said that I was not sympathetic to Chechen independence, thinking that it would bring lawlessness, corruption & chaos to the Caucasuses: I thought so in the mid-1990s during the first Chechen war, and I still think that now.
I edited out of my post above that “I thought that the PLO had the dumbest leadership ever of such a movement; evidently they’ve been beated into second place”.
Useful background articles to the 1999 invasion Stan talks about,and the influence of Wahabiism here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/P32-CWB.htm
and here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/p30-cwb.htm
The Russian language online media are reporting that the terrorist were a mixed group of Chechens, Ingushetians, and Arabs.
rilkefan,
Well, there’s some shady business going on over the bombing that took down an apt building. There are all kinds of theories that FSB is involved, but the invasion of Dagestan is an open and shut case against the Chechens.
Dave,
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound like I was putting words in your mouth. My comments were directed at he media, but obviously you are not a mind reader, I don’t know why I didn’t specify what I meant.. Its just frustrating that the media portraying Chechens as these glorious freedom fighters. I bet you that most people don’t even know about Basayev invading Dagestan. Its just not reported.
“Sorry, didn’t mean to sound like I was putting words in your mouth.”
Gracious apology accepted. Sorry if I in turn rubbed you the wrong way; I grew up in Northern Ireland, where, as the British commentator Edward Pearce put it, “political murder became boring”, so my reaction might have came off as a bit unfeeling.
Thanks for your work on translation on your blog.
Out of respect for Edward’s partner, I won’t elaborate on what I’d like to see done to the perpetrators of this massacre, other than to say it involves dogs and bacon.
Since, as I expected, this meme is starting to spread, how would those of you who’ve been following this case respond to the assertion that this is like Waco? Other than the obvious differences like location, the religion of those involved &c, I mean.
Out of respect for Edward’s partner, I won’t elaborate on what I’d like to see done to the perpetrators of this massacre, other than to say it involves dogs and bacon.
What the hell does any of this have to do with my partner? Get it straight folks. Muslims do not approve of this anymore than Christians approve of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
And devising tortures that involve specific aspects of one’s religion doesn’t make one morally superior to anyone.
Muslims do not approve of this….
Well, no. Quite a few do, in fact.
Interesting how you decry characterizing all Muslims in one fell swoop — until it comes time to exculpate them.
Tacitus, I echo a recent complaint by Matthew Yglesias to Glenn Reynolds – if you’re forced to quote fragment of a short statement to make your point, you should reconsider.
Interesting how you’re so hell-bent to decry all Muslims [well, more accurately, Islam, unless I’ve lost track] that you have to attack those insisting on accurate use of language.
In case I’m not the last person to read Gessen’s backgrounder in Slate… Includes a glancing argument with Stan‘s claim about Dagestan being “an open-and-shut case against the Chechens” (which I think is either quite sloppily phrased or on its face wrong).
Excuse me, but how can anyone writing this sentence:
“All it will take is for sufficient numbers of Americans to walk into the voting booth on November 2nd, give a passing thought to the inevitable slaughter, shrug, and vote Democratic. The insouciance of uncaring. The banality of evil. They’re just foreigners.”
possibly accuse Edward of overgeneralizing? He is right about a large majority of Muslims. You are wrong about an overwhelming majority of Democrats, as well as John Kerry’s policy towards Iraq, and the history of the genocide in Cambodia, and you conveniently ignore that he has been more hawkish than Bush on Darfur.
And I know where the phrase “the banality of evil” comes from.
Learn to choose your battles Tacitus. In this instance someone had cited my partner’s feelings as cause for not making an anti-Islamic statement. I appreciate the gesture, but abhor the logic. I had every cause to speak up here. You, on the other hand, have only the cause of your seemingly tireless campaign to drum up hatred to criticize, yet again, the distinction. You then go on to insist there are “quite a few” Muslims who supported this action. Name one nonterrorist Muslim who supported this.
I’ll set up the timer now while you scour the internet.
marguerite, do you have a link for that quote? I’d like to situate it in context before I decide how (or even if) I’ll respond.
Yes, here. Sorry, context is all, but in this case the context is just more of the same.
I probably should have taken my issues with it to redstate, but I will not add to the number of registered users of a site like that and I know I will only get flamed.
As for Osetia, it is not even totally clear that all of the terrorists supported it–some reports say that not all knew the target, objected when they found out, and that the leader shot one of his fellow terrorists and blew up two suicide bombers by remote to show objections would not be tolerated. If true–the story’s from a captured terrorist so its not a very trustworthy source–it seems to show that even murderers have their limits, and explicitly targetting small school children seems to be one of them.
I wish someone with credibility would point out, though, to all Muslims and especially Muslim clerics who had the normal human reaction to this atrocity but do not actively oppose Al Qaeda, that bin Laden specifically has said that killing 4 million Americans isn’t enough; he wants to make sure to kill at least 1 million American children.
It’s almost pornographic that Tacitus would elect to use a phrase (“banality of evil”) coined by Hannah Arendt to viciously smear Democrats.
Arendt–and later Edward Herman–used the phrase to describe those citizens who blithely and unquestioningly accept the premises of the state and, in doing so, helped to perpetrate atrocities.
That was my first and last visit to RedState; it appears to be a spinoff of LGF that uses better grammar.
That was my first and last visit to RedState
Tacitus had you banned, already?
You don’t quite get it, rilkefan — although that may be abetted by my rhetorical brevity. I’m not altering Edward’s post into something I can attack: it’s risible on its face and as a whole. Comparing the level of Muslim support for terror to the level of Christian support for the same, and claiming the two are roughly equivalent, is to indulge in a dishonest appraisal of the respective situations. There is a great deal of support for the massacre of noncombatants — men, women, and schoolchildren — in the Muslim world, and it far surpasses anything seen amongst Christians (who lack in the modern day, let it be noted, anything approaching the communal religious consciousness that Muslims around the world have admirably retained). What happened at Beslan, for example, has been going on in Israel for some time now: see, for example, the Palestinian slaughter of four little girls and their pregnant mother not so far back. Suffice it to say that if you’re able to wring a condemnation of that from the man on the street in Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, et al., it won’t be without a penumbra of justifications for such “resistance” in general, especially since the poor girls were, curse them, settlers. Certainly it didn’t put even a slight dent into Hamas’s popularity or fundraising prowess. In Iraq, and particularly in the Sunni regions, we see with increasing frequency the kidnapping of children to force local officials to bend to the guerrillas’ will. No word, to my knowledge, on whether any of the death threats against these children has yet been carried out — but who doubts that they would be?
The sad fact is that what happened at Beslan has some precedent with regard to children; and ample precedent with regard to the Muslim murder of mass numbers of innocents. Edward’s implicit contention that these horrors somehow repeatedly arise from Muslim societies ex nihilo — with such a small base of support, natch — is simply self-blinding. Even his defensive riposte must resort to logical dishonesty: if I find a “nonterrorist Muslim” who supports the atrocity at Beslan, then he’s probably not a nonterrorist, eh? (Although, since we don’t know that Omar Bakri Mohammed has participated in terrorist acts, perhaps he’ll do.) Furthermore, Edward’s challenge is necessarily limited to Beslan itself: he cannot issue the same challenge regarding Muslim support for such acts in principle — the results would be obvious.
I am interested in the contention that I am engaged in a “tireless campaign to drum up hatred”; that hatred presumably constituting an opinion of Islam that doesn’t conform to Edward’s. More sober individuals might note that a reflexive “hatred” is hardly consistent with my belief in the possibility of a just, liberal society in majority-Muslim nations; that a hater of Muslims would hardly seek out and interview the likes of Zainab al-Suwaij (who, as a presumptive Sistani supporter, is certainly not on my wavelength on many matters); that a hater of Muslims would not be a hate-object at LGF for, among other things, defending Islam per se from tainting by the actions of certain Palestinians and Sudanese; and that a hater of Muslims would hardly share Aziz Poonawalla’s dismay at the shameful treatment of a Muslim-American family at the last Cowboys home game. But, as it suits his purpose to smear rather than answer — shades of the unlamented Jesurgislac — the invective is rolled out as the easier option.
Marguerite is to be congratulated for being moderately well-read, but unless she has an argument to make, as opposed to assertions — and no, I’m quite right about Kerry’s plans for Iraq — then this is all the attention her comment deserves. As for her fears of getting flamed at Red State, rest assured that even the hint of it is not tolerated there: which is why Edward got himself banned in short order.
I am not arguing with that. Some things do not deserve it, and whose mind will I change?
Give me a break about the posting rules on your site. The casual homophobia is enough reason to avoid it by itself.
I am very curious to see if Moe or Sebastian find anything to object to in that statement, in a site they post to, because I think if I wrote a similar attack on Republicans here I would be banned. And I might deserve it, too.
“I am very curious to see if Moe or Sebastian find anything to object to in that statement, in a site they post to, because I think if I wrote a similar attack on Republicans here I would be banned. And I might deserve it, too.”
(Shrug) If we’re talking about Tac’s observation of Kerry and some of his supporters, I read it. I agree in some parts, disagree in others and I currently feel no urge to comment further. And I generally try to not tell other bloggers how to write on their own sites (including my cobloggers, btw).
Come now, Marguerite. As if taking John Kerry at his word is some manner of undignified smear. What’s next — judging him on his record? That really would be beyond the pale, eh?
As for “casual homophobia,” you’ll have to point it out to me. Obviously I’m missing something awful.
Inability masquerading as unwillingness does little credit — to you and to anyone.
well, this is instructive if nothing else.
Tacitus: “You don’t quite get it, rilkefan — although that may be abetted by my rhetorical brevity.”
I think it’s you who doesn’t quite get it – where I at least mean “honest discourse” and not “Hitchens discourse”. Your sentence would have been better cast as “Sorry, rilkefan, you’ve missed my point because I wrote it in my private shorthand in haste – here’s what I meant”.
“Comparing the level of Muslim support for terror to the level of Christian support for the same, and claiming the two are roughly equivalent, is to indulge in a dishonest appraisal of the respective situations.”
Here you’re pretending to believe that Edward claims a similar level of fanaticism on the part of xians and muslims, as opposed to saying the existence of muslim fanaticism is not sufficent to prove the thesis above in the same way that the existence of xian fanaticism is not enough to prove less pleasing theses.
But I should let Edward respond.
“Marguerite is to be congratulated for being moderately well-read…” Tacitus is to be congratulated for being moderately snide.
I’m not altering Edward’s post into something I can attack.
Seems like it to me. Edward was not talking about the feelings of all Muslims toward terror in general, he was talking about how “Muslims” (he didn’t attach a quantifier, so it’s not clear whether he means “all”, “most”, or “some”) feel about this particiular atttack. Do you have any evidence of widespread support in the worldwide Muslim community for the Chechen terrorist acts, or any other reason why the earlier poster should be worried about Edward’s partner’s feelings if he posts what he’d like to do to these terrorists?
More sober individuals might note that a reflexive “hatred” is hardly consistent with my belief in the possibility of a just, liberal society in majority-Muslim nations;
Can you post a link to your statement of this belief? I haven’t visited your site in a while, but this seems at odds with what I remember of past posts of yours.
In what I consider a mostly welcome development, the Russian people are beginning to question Putin’s Chechnya policy.
p.s. Moe, for those of us who have to do a lot of repeated editing to avoid greater embarrasment, the site seems to be eating my name/email when I preview lately – could that be fixed? I’m using the same mozilla as before…
Here you’re pretending to believe….
Out of curiosity — what do you feel is unique and worthwhile about an interlocutor who assumes, absent evidence, unstated malicious falsehood on the part of his counterpart?
Indeed, let Edward speak.
And KenB — didn’t you just get exactly that right in this thread?
Even his defensive riposte must resort to logical dishonesty: if I find a “nonterrorist Muslim” who supports the atrocity at Beslan, then he’s probably not a nonterrorist, eh? (Although, since we don’t know that Omar Bakri Mohammed has participated in terrorist acts, perhaps he’ll do.) Furthermore, Edward’s challenge is necessarily limited to Beslan itself: he cannot issue the same challenge regarding Muslim support for such acts in principle — the results would be obvious.
Under 2.5 hours…what’s the matter, google sluggish today?
I was writing about Beslan itself, which is why I limited my comments to Beslan itself (see how that works?). If you were not discussing Beslan itself in your first comment here, you might have made that more clear.
Then again, I don’t hold Muslims to the same standards of disassociation you do, so perhaps that’s an unfair request where you’re concerned.
But it’s the kneejerk fashion in which you jump in to spread the fear that’s most telling Tacitus. “Don’t let the masses start to think about these issues…keep it simple, black and white, us vs. them. Oh, you’ll go into more considered explanations when challenged, but the original snark also had an intent you don’t seem to own up to.
And KenB — didn’t you just get exactly that right in this thread?
The statement I quoted implies that you had already made that belief apparent somehow, else how could any sober individual note it? As I said, it’s not something I would have suspected that you believed given what I’ve read in the past.
If you make a statement about X, and I directly address that statement, then the continued reference to X is implied, no?
Anyway, your statement was wrong on its face, and I think I’ve amply covered that — particularly in the absence of any meaningful contention on your part. Which makes your gripe that I’m advocating a refusal to think(!) particularly ironic. Deliciously so, from my perspective: any man who waxes on about the abuse of language at a political convention can’t denounce reasoned, fact-based assertions as mere “spreading the fear” without becoming an object of ridicule — or at the least, hypocrisy — himself.
Just out of curiosity, can someone translate Tacitus‘s September 7, 2004 12:50 PM
comment into simple English for me, esp. the first part? It appears to me to be written in the same shorthand as his first comment to Edward and I can’t tell if he’s angry at me, Edward, whoever Edward was responding to, or himself – and while the last would be most amusing, it seems on general principles unlikely.
rilfekan:
In what I consider a mostly welcome development, the Russian people are beginning to question Putin’s Chechnya policy.
You might want to re-read the NY Times link you cited. While I agree with you that it would be welcome, there’s nothing in that article to suggest any particular motion on the part of Russian public opinion. Indeed, these same voices have been saying these same things for some time now and there was an editorial in the online press at the very outset of the Beslan incident that made nearly identical points.
My own reading of the Russian press accounts is that public opinion in Russia now has more sympathy for a much tougher and much broader military offensive against Islamist terrorism that has the potential to spread war all across the Caucasus. IMO, not a good development.
Avoiding the issue won’t help you Tacitus. You know I’m obstinate on this.
Your first comment intended to convince JKC (and anyone else willing to be convinced) to stick with their initial hate-filled, anti-Muslim response to Beslan. I know it and by now you should recognize it yourself. Your credentials on parsing the topic over the past few years don’t wash that away.
What other reason could there be for you to counter my statement? You didn’t offer any cites to back you up then. More to the point, you know you won’t convince me. I was not your intended audience. You saw a potential disciple and attempted to win him/her over with a mocking dismissal of my point.
Just calling it like I see it.
Oh, and with regards to your ‘banning’ me on RedState. If you check the archives, you’ll recall that move was gratuitous on your part. I had already left willingly.
Dave, thanks for the correction – would it have been accurate to say the press is beginning to turn (or turning more audibly) against Putin’s policy, which is at least something? How much is Putin beholden to or interested in public opinion, anyway?