Crash due to terror attack, says Russia

[lil-petunia]

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/27russia.htm


"Crash due to terror attack, says Russia

August 27, 2004 15:47 IST

At least one of the two Russian plane crashes that killed 89 people on Tuesday was the result of a terror attack as traces of explosives have been found on the airliner that crashed in Rostov region, the Russian Federal Security Service FSB said today.

FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko also said that the investigators are close to identifying the attackers of Tu-154 plane of the Sibir Airlines which crashed in Rostov region.

"In the process of operational investigation activities information has been received on the basis of which attackers of Tu-154 can be identified," Ignatchenko was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS."

[soothsayer]

1. I wonder what the point was supposed to be? n/t

[lil-petunia]

2. chechins?

Ever see the before and after shots of their capital city?
Gorgeous, old gracious buildings, with cobblestone, curving streets, great examples of ancient churches, a beautiful city. = before.

rubble. everywhere. everygoddamnedwhere. = after.

the russians took a huge city and demolished it. They created more terra-ists than they killed.

[LondonAmerican]

4. Sad to see people making excuses for murderous terrorists

[Aidoneus]

6. Sad to see people making praise of genocide

:eyes:

[lil-petunia]

7. I'm not sure I follow your point.

I have been in the capital - and frankly it was gorgeous. Before.
and NOT ALL of them were corrupt thieves, but I'll admit, throughout the rest of the USSR, a goodly portion of them were.

I guess it is like saying that all arabs are terrorists, all jews are corrupt bankers and all wasps are corn-holing sheep lovers. Not even truisms, just insulting.

[LondonAmerican]

16. My point was that

you cannot justify terrorism (by definition, terrorism is against innocent third-parties) by appeals to what someone else did.

I think I inferred more from your post than I should have. Sorry.

No doubt Grozny was a lovely city but that doesn't justify killing Russian civilians randomly. And, if it DOES justify random killing of Russians, then certainly Russians are equally justified in reprisals. I just don't think anyone gets very far by apologising for terror -- and I';m sorry if I misread your post to infer that.

[Toots]

19. I didn't think he was making excuses for the Russians

The Chechnians were never terrorists. They were people who wanted their freedom and still do. If Russia would give them their freedom there would be no further attacks. Kind of how the Americans treated the Brittish in the late 1700s.

[krkaufman]

24. It's not "making excuses"

It's called understanding the supply routes of your enemy.

The only way to ultimately defeat terrorists is to cut off their supply routes -- of damaged, humiliated people with nothing to lose. You cannot simply bomb terrorists out of existence.

Use of extreme physical force certainly increases the number of people willing to actively participate in "terrorist" activities, and likely shifts the middle masses into sympathethic positions with terrorists -- increasing the terrorists range of operation, and shrinking the pool of those who might provide tips.

Physical force is essential in diverting imminent attacks, but the only viable long-term solution is a more stealthy, subtle investigative and humanitarian approach (with exercise of physical force only when *necessary*).

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lil-petunia]

5. When I studied in the USSR (1976), they were the gangster race

I mean, they controlled the black market, the dollar trade and the drugs.
even in those days, all of that existed.

But of course it did. What else could conceivable happen if for two years, all you sell is one model of size 9 shoes? and all other sizes have to pray for a trade or another year?

I once heard a Commie party member say that Chechens were nothing more than criminal gypsies who decided to call themselves a state. Of course, we were into your third bottle of vodka that evening.

[LondonAmerican]

11. I was in Moscow earlier this year

shortly after Chechen scum blew up a metro station randonly killing people all around. Last year they attacked the theatre and threatened to kill everyone until Putin finally had all of the hostage takers shot between between the eyes after they were gassed (good decision!) They've also taken to blowing up apartment blocks killing nundreds at a time.

The Chechens are and have always been renegades and criminals. They were Nazis in WWII and they are Islamofascists now. No big difference in my book.

Say what you will about Uncle Joe, but there were no bands of thuggish religious terrorists running around killing people at random when he held sway.

I think a lengthy holiday in Siberia would be in order for members of any Chechen terrorist organisation and their immediate family members.

[markses]

26. But there were thuggish terrorists running around - on behalf of Uncle Joe

That they were a mechanism of the state apparatus makes them no less terrorists, nor does it make their arbitrary murders less random.

[jayfish]

27. But Have You Ever Been To Groznyy?

http://www.aif.ru:81/data/mags/aif/1076/pics/05_03_00.jpg







Are you in love with Joe (I'm worse than Hitler) Stalin? Islamofascists? Where have I heard that brand before.... oh, ya that's right, it was on the Savage Weiner show. I'd hate to hear your opinion of George Washington.

EDITED FOR CONTENT

Jay

[Aidoneus]

8. I suppose Hitler also had the right idea about the Jews?

It was the same idea for the same reasons, so I assume you mean that too.. I get disgusted at this place fairly regularly on certain subjects, but I never thought I'd have my jaw hit the ground so hard as this. Worry not your pretty little head, Putin is hard at work at dwarfing even Stalin's designs. Shamil is also on the case to thwart this hard work with what resources are at hand.

[markses]

9. I agree

That "Stalin had the right idea" post is absolutely inappropriate for this or any other civilized forum. Just atrocious.

[LondonAmerican]

13. One can only hope that Putin will put an end to this terror

[Darranar]

28. Whose terror? n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LondonAmerican]

12. No doubt you would find excuses

for terrorists if they blew up your family. Sad.

[Krupskaya]

14. You are one sick individual.

I object to your comment about Stalin having the right idea.

[LondonAmerican]

22. Would it have been better

had I said Lenin or Trotsky had the right idea? How about Bukharin? Kamenev? Zinoviev? They would have done the same in the face of rightwing terror.

[markses]

15. To end terror, you suggest terrorizing innocent people

You suggest the mass murder of the Chechens, a la Stalin. So you suggest the "If you can't beat em, join em" plan of combatting terror. You are virtually a terrorist yourself, then. Now that IS sad.

[LondonAmerican]

18. What should the Russians do instead

(besides read tired failed '68 revolution theorists?)

The fact is that some people still live in a part of the world where horror is occurring on a daily basis. You have to take sides. I would rather see the Russians win than a bunch of Nazis -- sorry if you cannot see the difference.

[Aidoneus]

23. Studying the methodology of what you praise as I have,

you're going to have to put up another alternative, for what are suggested rather resemble one and the same. :shrug:

There is actually some truth to what you say, or at least a part of it, though what is referenced by it would differ greatly between our minds and I assume it was an unintended coincidence. I should like to see you grow a beard and take a spin through the wrong end of the "anti-terror" ops at Khankala or any of the other concentration camps. I should then like to ask you which side you are on before the anti-terror grenade is tossed onto your stacked and mutilated body.

(this should go over better than "fuck you, asshole", but I rather liked the bare honesty of that instead.. oh well.)

[markses]

25. A clownish attempt at ethics

If, in order for the Russians to win, they must become "Nazis," (which I suppose implies mass murderers) as you imply in your praise of Stalin's methods and tactics, then it is Nazis all the way down. You're the one promoting the destruction of a population, not me, pal.

As for "failed revolution theorists" (I'm assuming you mean Deleuze and Guattari), I'll leave it to history and philosophy to judge that. You seem remarkably unqualified.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LondonAmerican]

20. I'll let your post speak for itself

[Aidoneus]

21. Good

My first impression of you was poor, but I like somebody who lets my words speak for themselves. So often that is not the case.

...but alas, others will not let it do so. You could've just had me delete the "fuck you, asshole" part.. but no.

[Endangered Specie]

29. I put my money on Chechnians.

[Vladimir]

30. This makes no sense to me

What would the Chechens (assuming it was them) have hoped to gain from this? One of our resident experts on the situation enlighten me please...

[Aidoneus]

31. As a resident <edited out for modesty>..

It doesn't at all make sense. An obscure Pakistani group is taking credit for it, even though evidence is still not pointing towards sabotage (though government officials really, really want it to be--as if Russian nazis need any more reason to carry out yet another holy patriotic pogrom against the undesireable races). If it was a bomb and not this Kitaeb al-Islambouli, but rather a Chechen after all, it wouldn't be logical or reasonable anyway.

The mainline of the resistance, under President Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev--the latter one of the most formidable guerrila resistance commanders in modern history--has nothing to gain from it, nor is gain sought by those who would do something like this. It would be done out of pure vengeance, by a group of women loosely referred to as the Black Widows. These women have had their families slaughtered by the Russian invaders in the wars--have seen their neighborhoods destroyed, their children rounded up and tortured, their friends disappeared or buried, any stranger receiving the same fate, and they strike now purely for the sake of vengeance. Those hypocrites who bark with such macho ferver when the widows hit back could've maybe shown even a fraction of the outrage and acted when their families were slaughtered to begin with, then perhaps there would not be those now willing to hit back with the same viciousness that they were shown (and I don't believe entire neighborhoods and villages disappearing and a generation rounded up and tortured was ever referred to as "terrorism" in the western liberal media).

[Vladimir]

32. Thanks for the response

as you say, it does the guerillas no good, and in any case their recent MO has been more the targetting of collaborators and Russian forces (i remember an organised strike across the border a few months ago in which a string of police/army stations were attacked).

BBC is now saying they are focusing on the identities of certain passangers whose bodies have not been found, both women. There may well be something to this Black Widow business...