NEWS: Shooting Children In The Back

Royal, welcome to the right wing!!! Never thought you would come into the light!!

Moderate Muslims don't have to say shit about this.
It has nothing to do with them.
Next time a WASP does something horrible am I supposed to hold a fucking vigil?
The prejudice and stereotyping here is just sickening.
If anyone spoke in these tones about any other group or class of people they'd be zotted.
Why is it OK to shit on Muslims?

Hey, I apologize for calling you right-wing. Right after posting my last comment (and before I could refresh this page and read "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE") I clicked your name to try and see if there was anything I could learn. Your journal posts and the fact that you've been dealing with the RNC in your home seemed pretty interesting. Hell, you even make a comment about getting Bush out of office. I assumed that this clever social software was set up with links back to our profiles to encourage that sort of thing. I apologize for um... err... clicking a link?

What can I say, I was wrong. So, I figured rather than get into some personal apologetic shit on a news thread, I'd make a joking comment in the hopes of starting some sort of dialogue. Too late for that now, eh?

I post random shit on threads like this to get people to question the random "facts" that are being beamed in via the various mainstream media outlets. Sure, I sit in a room completely wrapped in tinfoil and run from black helicopters, but I'm not looking to convert anyone and I'm certainly not looking to help the thread digress to personal attacks. The comment directed at you did just that. I shouldn't drink and type.

Again, I apologize if you took any of this personally. That wasn't the intent.

<insert the "ahhhh" sound here>

Since no one seems to be able to shed light on my earlier question (about any Muslim hierarchy or organization) I'll ask this sincere question:

Who are the Muslim leaders who are prominent enough to be worth hearing from? There certainly doesn't seem to be anyone as prominent as a Pope John Paul or a Minister Farrakhan, or even a religious leader known in secular circles like the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

It seems to be that Islam or, individually, its three primary denominations, has enough/any hierarchy, thus giving no one the power to speak for any sizable percentage of the religion.

And if I'm wrong, please inform me.

"Facts"? Are you a complete fucking idiot? A bunch of fucking Chechen militant thugs hold Russians--mostly children--hostage for three days. When Russians show up to help after talking to the thugs, they see wounded and DEAD children. Shortly after that BOMBS explode. And they go in to save the rest of them. Here's the exact breakdown from the BBC.

What the fuck is so hard to undetstand about those facts you fucking asshole. What benefit would there be to doing this for anyone? It's fucking clear as DAY! Thugs take children and adults hostage. Thugs kill children and kids IN THE BACK as they are trying to escape. Russian forces move in to save who they can.

"Post random shit" indeed. And to presume that because I accept those facts I am right wing? FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!!!!

You know what would be funny? The "Anti-Corporate We Know The Truth Because We Are Not Slaves to the Mainstream Media" weather report:

"Mainstream media says it's 80 degrees and partially cloudly, but we all know that they are telling you that because they have an agenda to uphold! It's 80.5 degrees and MOSTLY cloudy! Why did the mainstream media not count that half a degree? Why did they say partially when we all know it is mostly cloudy! Do not bow down to the corporate overlords and their questionable affliations. We tell you the weather AS IT IS!!!! Coming up next, Hurricane Frances: The Bush administration's ultimate tool in controlling media complacency. Do not fall prey to corporate weather toadies! Liberate your meteorogical mind!"

Fucking idiots!

[Edited on Sep 04, 2004 by royaljack]

no, i was just saying that i ain't marching anymore. that's it and that's all. it's just for decoration.

Well, the message was mixed, but you have good taste. Peace out!

Look the Associated Press is mentioning possible reasons for the Russian government to spin things. Fucking AP loons.

Here's something else to read.

Doesn't make either side any more right than the other.

While spewing random obscenities at me, someone mentioned that I should read a BBC News article.

It's interesting to see the BBC point out that -

...maybe the child killers weren't Chechen thugs after all.


[Edited on Sep 04, 2004 10:19PM]

You forgot something:

Funny how you fail to mention the first part of that.

And the article in question is an op-ed/analysis piece by "Stephen Mulvey: BBC News Online Russian affairs analyst".

Here's the deal. Unless proven otherwise, there is no reason to assume a theory is anything more than a theory. For example, on 9/11/2001 there were reports in Arab media that Jews were alerted to the WTC attacks and left the building before it collapsed. And that the planes were piloted not by Al Qaeda operatives, but by Isralie Mossad agents.

And in the days immediately following 9-11, Al Qaeda feigned ignorance to the attacks and blamed others. Eventually coming clean on their own and admitting they did it.

Also, you failed to mention the closing paragraph of the analysis:

Now, here's the big test. Did I ever say they were Chechens? Or did I--and others--say they are Chechen militants? The difference being I never assumed their ethnicity to be Chechen to begin with. But I identified them as Chechen militants because regardless of the demands, it seems that whatever the ethnic makeup of the group the goal was the same. To fight and kill Russians for a Chechen cause. And that's it.

If you're trying to prove a vast conspiracy theory and that this was staged by Russsia, you need to learn how to read. Because while the exact identity of the thugs is not 100% and the exact goal is not 100% clear, it is clear that this was being done for the benefit of the Chechen cause and the final goal is a moot point because if you step back and see what they did and the scale they did it at, it was clear they wanted to simply kill the hostages and that's it.

You don't take 1,000+ people as hostage because you want to sit down for an extended period and hold tight until demands are met. You take 1,000+ people as hostage because you are going to kill them. Simple as that.

Ever try to organize a night out with more than 4 friends? Pretty hard to do. 1,000+ people? I don't think the Chechen militants were packing enough Granola Bars and juice boxes to feed them all.

[Edited on Sep 04, 2004 by royaljack]

How do you qualify saying that war between capitalist countries is far less likely than war between communist or socialists countries? The whole history of capitalims is non-stop war. It is barbarity to an extreme unimaginable during previous epochs. I think of the Jewish holocaust, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the napalming of enormous swathes of forests which will never grow again to give a scant few of the many, many awful examples just from the past century alone. War is a fundamental component of capitalism. A constant drive to out-compete other corporations/nations will necessarily lead to a conflict over resources. Witness the recent power-grab in oil-rich Iraq. The massive strategic importance of having a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq is lost on no one. No true socialist/communist country has ever existed, at least for very long. The early stages of the Soviet Union are as close as we have come up to this time. The Russian Revolution effectively ended WWI. It stirred massive uprisings all over Europe. The capitalist powers stopped fighting themselves for a moment and focused the intensity of their barbarity on the newly formed workers democracy that was the Soviet Union. But the Soviets pushed the capitalists back, with the help of the massive uprisings going on in England, France, and Germany lead by socialist workers parties in solidarity with their soviet comrades. The Soviet government did what the Tsar would never have done. They signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty which ended Russia's involvment in the WWI conflict at a great cost to Russia but agreed to it nonetheless so that the bloodshed would cease. Likewise the socialists workers uprisings in the other capitalist nations forced their governments to end the bloodshed. Unfortunately the invasion of the capitalist powers into newly soviet russia and the ensuing civil war fought between the working class and the old tsarist remnants completely devastated russia and crippled the socialists movement which led to the rise of the bureacracy, which paved the way for Stalin and his goons to seize power. Stalin helped to put down workers uprisings all over the world and deformed socialism totally contradicting and betraying the revolution and the teachings of Marx and Engels. As a result the world has only ever known deformed Stalinist states that call themselves communist but are no different from any totalitarian society whether you call it capitalist, fascist, Christian or Muslim. But under true socialism there would be no dog-eat-dog competitiveness, the technology and industry we have would be used to provide everyone with all the basic necessities such as housing, health-care, education, food, transportation, jobs that pay a living wage. The economy would be planned around ensuring everyone had what they needed instead of being planned around enriching the top 1% while the rest of the 99% fight over themselves for the few table-scraps that the elite throw down to us. An economy planned by the workers to provide for the needs of all, that is true socialism and there would be no battling over resources, no need to go to war over this or that resource-rich territory. We have the industry and technology to provide a very high standard of living for every one on this earth. We live in a remarkable era. But as long as we live under capitalism it will be a world of endless war one in which the millions sacrifice their lives so that the millionaires can enrich themselves further.

Actually you're the loon. Or illiterate.

The AP article linked talks about how Putin's efforts to characterize it as terrorism perpetuated by Islamic extremists is being done to shift focus from the Chechen national cause.

Now, that is not great. But when all is said and done, it does not change the fact that:
1) There is no proof that agents of Russia orchestrated this whole mess. No matter what the ethnicity of the fighters are, they are fighting for Chechen national autonomy by commiting heinous acts.
2) The Chechen militants are spinning the issues on their side as well. One second claiming nationalism as the main cause. The next reaching out to Islamic extremist factions for aid. Here's some choice snpiets from the AP article to clear things up.

So, when all is said and done what you're characterizing as a Russian attempt to twist the inicident--almost implying they staged it--is really just the political result of an issue that has existed for years. Chechnian independence has been an issue for years. But in recent years, Chechen militants have been growing to be more than just a nationalist cause, but have begun to embrace a religious angle to all of this.

Putin's political stance is a bit off for right now, but it is not deceptive and it is not a grand conspiracty. Right now he's dealing with the sad fact that Chechen militants are now aligning themselves with Al Qaeda and others to achieve their goals.

Calling Chechen militants terrorists 5 years ago? You could but that would be extreme.

Calling Chechen militants terrorists NOW? Absolutely.

The only grand conspiracy in place right now is the Chechen people who are now having to deal with the fact that an extreme religious angle is slowly seeping into their nationalistic dreams thanks to a bunch of self-centered/opportunistic thugs. And if they don't deal with it soon... Well... They should really deal with it NOW.

[Edited on Sep 04, 2004 by royaljack]

Man.

What a way to contribute to page 6 of what is mostly a really stupid thread.

Add an interminable paragraph full of too many idiotic assertions to even try to attempt refuting.

Man. I should just avoid the 6-pages-in-a-day trainwreck threads completely.

You fucking commies make me laugh.

Incidentally, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat is a private corporation wholly owned by the Saudi government.

[Edited on Sep 05, 2004 by reprobate]

Bean, you make good points about the impossibility of the sort of dissent we take for granted happening in many Muslim countries. But it is surprising that we haven't seen any such thing on a massive scale in, say, London, or in other European cities with large Muslim populations.

Edited so I could stay the fuck awake and respond. You are noble in your focus however hopelessly deluded otherwise. Socialism will never work due to human nature and the fact the people are different. Warfare and agression are a component of human nature as well as greed. This fact alone spells the doom for socialism.

Edited to add:

I don't see any other religion that commits terrorist acts as a component of practice. If you look anywhere in the world wwhere terrorist activites occur you will see almost exclusively muslim groups responsible.

[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by FermatsEnigma]

i know this is a joke, but it's still a good place to point out that, as far as i know, the koran does not call for the killing of infidels. i believe it calls for jihad only in defense of fellow muslims who are under attack (and even "jihad" iself has been interpreted to mean spiritual struggle rather than armed struggle by some islamic theologians).

even bin laden didn't state his call for jihad in pre-emptive terms, but (rightly or wrongly) as a self-defense argument.

perhaps someone who knows the koran well could comment on this.

How do you know they were Islamic fundamentalists?

Why is an Islamic terrorist worse than just any old terrorist?

While I'm here, if anyone can tell me why killing 600 children in a school is terrible, while killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians, including thousands of children, is OK I'd be grateful.

(and for the thickies: I haven't said killing kids is not bad. Learn to read. I'm asking why one is bad and the other isn't.)

But what am I expecting from someone who says "Delenda est Arabia", eh?

People only commenting on stuff they know about? Inconceivable.

bad analogy.

the sexual assault of children by catholic priests has caused a shitstorm for the church. there may not have been marches (not nationwide marches, anyway), but there have been financially devastating class-action lawsuits, and, more important, churchgoers have voted with their feet, rejecting the church and staying home on sundays. the combination of the two has been crippling.

in ireland, a country that was >90% catholic, the church was once a major political and social force. it is now a shadow of its former self because of the widespread revulsion to pedophilia and other abuse of children under its care. in america, churches are suffering greatly for their actions as well, which is as it should be.

also, as horrific as the sexual abuse scandals are, they pale in comparison to the consequences of terrorist attacks escalating to the use of nuclear devices.



[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by saucy_son]

This is a good thing, that most people welcome; Moderate Muslims getting a voice and saying that they don't like being included with the nutters everytime someone sets a bomb.

But wait, do you believe that 'moderate muslims' exist? I guess it's going to be tricky when people discover that very many 'fundamentalist islamic terrorist' is a stupid pointless term that hides the issue.

Islam is not the problem; terrorists are the problem. Well, terrorists and Putin's fuckwittery.

Being a lefty-liberal myself I won't say things like "fucking commie" but I will say this, I belive in things like socialized medicine...everything else is bullshit ideaology that goes against human nature and therefore can't work.

But the real reason I commented here is to say this; paragraphs are your friend, they make dizzying blocks of words like the one you posted readable.

Thanks,

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about the hierarchical structure of Islam and/or its various denominations and sects.

Who are these leaders that should be stepping up to the plate? How many people would they be representing? What kind of organization could lead such a protest? What kind of organization could someone leave (like mentioned above re. the Catholic church abuse scandals)? I hear a lot about wanting Muslims to protest, but which leaders or organizations?

Until someone can answer these questions or point me to a good source for answers, I'm going to have to say that the lack of response by the masses of Muslims is quite possibly the product of a lack of organization within the Muslim world. If every Mosque is an independent agent with no ties to a central governing body, who in the Muslim world would be worth listening to that would speak on behalf of any significant portion of the religion or under whose banner would they gather to voice their opinion?

Satyagrahi said ....
One major step in the "war on terrorism" would be to cancel the debts owed to us by low income nations. What about that money that we depend on from them? It will be a hit to our economy at first. But eventually the people of those countries will actually be able to earn money, thus increasing their ability to trade with other nations, thus increasing (to many's chagrin) the capitalist strength of the world.

I say....
I think there is a real catch 22 here. Capitalists cancelling debt??? They would lose the ultimate desire -control of capital. And assuming that cancelling debt would work, how would we ensure that the results were beneficial to the people that need help? I think your statements are excellent by the way.