Putin YOU are the Sewer Rat
Black Widow Dzhennet Adbullayeva poses with her militant husband Umalat Magomedov who was killed by federal forces in 2009. Since Chechen suicide attacks began in 2000, forty percent of the bombers have been women seeking revenge.
While terrorism perpetrated by groups or individuals is rightfully condemned, state terror is too often celebrated. Medals are awarded and parades held in honor of bloody campaigns that would be labeled criminal if they were carried out with small arms and suicide bombs instead of tanks and high altitude bombers.
Following the double suicide bombings on Moscow’s subway system in late March Prime Minister Vladimir Putin demanded that those responsible be scraped “from the bottom of the sewers.” His tough talk echoed statements he made in 1999 when he promised to “pursue the terrorists everywhere” and “rub them out in the outhouse.”
After following them into Chechnya with 90,000 Russian troops Putin emerged from obscurity and climbed to the upper echelons of Russian power by prosecuting one of the most vicious and brutal counterinsurgency campaigns in modern history.
Painting the centuries-old struggle for Chechen independence as an Islamic extremist movement, Putin ordered a scorched-earth campaign in the Caucasus. It featured the extensive burning of Chechen homes, mass extrajudicial executions, the systematic rape of Chechen women and indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas, including the near destruction of the capital, Grozny. The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 30,000 and 40,000 Chechen civilians out of a population of one million.
Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has done extensive research on the motivations behind suicide bombing. As he found in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, Pape concluded that Chechen suicide terrorism is a last resort against brutal military occupation.
Of the 63 Chechens who killed themselves in suicide attacks since 2000, 40 percent were female. These so-called “Black Widows” sought to avenge a husband, child or close relative killed by occupying Russian soldiers. The murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya once said that the Black Widows “are trying to force Russians to feel the same pain that they have felt.”
It’s becoming harder to tell the difference between those occupying the halls of power and those who live in the margins, shadows and sewers.
30 comments on the article “Putin YOU are the Sewer Rat”
Displaying 11 - 20 of 30
Page 2 of 3
Matthew D Herrmann
"Pape concluded that Chechen suicide terrorism is a last resort against brutal military occupation."
and
"The murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya once said that the Black Widows “are trying to force Russians to feel the same pain that they have felt.”
If it's a last resort against a brutal military occupation, then by all means it's entirely justified AND excusable. Is this article even serious? Suicide bombing is perpetrated by cowards who have no business being defended.
This article seems to omit the fact that suicide bombers don't normally attack military targets. They seek out areas full of innocent people, most (if not all) had nothing to do with any military occupation brutal or otherwise. Terrorists aren't freedom fighters, they aren't heroes, and they aren't justified.
Here's a better concept, and it worked incredibly well when Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr did it: non-violence.
Matthew D Herrmann
"Pape concluded that Chechen suicide terrorism is a last resort against brutal military occupation."
and
"The murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya once said that the Black Widows “are trying to force Russians to feel the same pain that they have felt.”
If it's a last resort against a brutal military occupation, then by all means it's entirely justified AND excusable. Is this article even serious? Suicide bombing is perpetrated by cowards who have no business being defended.
This article seems to omit the fact that suicide bombers don't normally attack military targets. They seek out areas full of innocent people, most (if not all) had nothing to do with any military occupation brutal or otherwise. Terrorists aren't freedom fighters, they aren't heroes, and they aren't justified.
Here's a better concept, and it worked incredibly well when Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr did it: non-violence.
Anonymous
"Here's a better concept, and it worked incredibly well when Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr did it: non-violence."
Well, actually, no. All movements I've studied so far (and I don't profess to have studied them all) show that there is usually an armed struggle working in parallel with the non-violent/constitutional one. For example, Clement Atlee, the British Prime Minister at the time of Indian Independence, had stated the Quit India was pretty insignificant - what was important were the mutinies, revolts and riots within the Royal Indian Armed Forces, inspired by the Indian National Army's armed struggle. Even Gandhi, himself, had doubts about non-violence. Did the Black Panthers, Malcolm X and others not exist in tandem with MLK? Are you saying the Desmond Tutu had a greater impact than Nelson Mandela?
But to the point: I certainly didn't take the article as a defense of suicide bombers. I thought it had more to do with putting them into a context. Sean MacBride, recipient of both the Nobel Peace and Lenin Peace Prizes, co-found of Amnesty International and former IRA chief of staff has written eloquently about layers of violence and removing the root cause of violence.
By ignoring that and focusing only on statements that seem, in your opinion, to be defending suicide bomber actions, are you saying we should NOT condemn people who cold-heartedly project "collateral damage" and engage in attacks that will most likely result in 85% of victims being civilians (the number associated with all state wars in the late 20th century) and then portray them as surgical strikes? Are you saying these people are brave, romantic warriors deserving of our admiration?
Anonymous
"Here's a better concept, and it worked incredibly well when Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr did it: non-violence."
Well, actually, no. All movements I've studied so far (and I don't profess to have studied them all) show that there is usually an armed struggle working in parallel with the non-violent/constitutional one. For example, Clement Atlee, the British Prime Minister at the time of Indian Independence, had stated the Quit India was pretty insignificant - what was important were the mutinies, revolts and riots within the Royal Indian Armed Forces, inspired by the Indian National Army's armed struggle. Even Gandhi, himself, had doubts about non-violence. Did the Black Panthers, Malcolm X and others not exist in tandem with MLK? Are you saying the Desmond Tutu had a greater impact than Nelson Mandela?
But to the point: I certainly didn't take the article as a defense of suicide bombers. I thought it had more to do with putting them into a context. Sean MacBride, recipient of both the Nobel Peace and Lenin Peace Prizes, co-found of Amnesty International and former IRA chief of staff has written eloquently about layers of violence and removing the root cause of violence.
By ignoring that and focusing only on statements that seem, in your opinion, to be defending suicide bomber actions, are you saying we should NOT condemn people who cold-heartedly project "collateral damage" and engage in attacks that will most likely result in 85% of victims being civilians (the number associated with all state wars in the late 20th century) and then portray them as surgical strikes? Are you saying these people are brave, romantic warriors deserving of our admiration?
Anonymous
Love this article, i just really wish more people would be more aware of this kinda thing... jihad is not violence or terrorism.. its a full blown struggle.
Anonymous
Love this article, i just really wish more people would be more aware of this kinda thing... jihad is not violence or terrorism.. its a full blown struggle.
ETNIKS
While I do share her thoughts on despicable STATE TERRORISM of all kinds, be it from Israel, the US, the UK, France Russia etc. I do NOT share her views on justifying Chechen's terrorism on civilian targets.
History shows Chechen terrorist acts like the one where hundreds of children died in a school in a southern Russian Republic, the Moscow theater and others DID NOT get them any sympathy from any one that could support their cause.
Fanaticism of all kinds, is a dead end.
You should start by dropping any ideas from your mind that imagines the world as a flat, standarized society believing in your same religion!!!
Not only it is not going to happen, but it will FREE YOU from all your misplaced rage and then you can concentrate on the REAL issues of how foreign forces in your Republic (Russians?) are taking advantage (or even if they really are taking advantage) of your people.
That I am really interested in, to hear your complaints based on REASON, not FANATICISM.
ETNIKS
While I do share her thoughts on despicable STATE TERRORISM of all kinds, be it from Israel, the US, the UK, France Russia etc. I do NOT share her views on justifying Chechen's terrorism on civilian targets.
History shows Chechen terrorist acts like the one where hundreds of children died in a school in a southern Russian Republic, the Moscow theater and others DID NOT get them any sympathy from any one that could support their cause.
Fanaticism of all kinds, is a dead end.
You should start by dropping any ideas from your mind that imagines the world as a flat, standarized society believing in your same religion!!!
Not only it is not going to happen, but it will FREE YOU from all your misplaced rage and then you can concentrate on the REAL issues of how foreign forces in your Republic (Russians?) are taking advantage (or even if they really are taking advantage) of your people.
That I am really interested in, to hear your complaints based on REASON, not FANATICISM.
Ed wrock Dog
I've never been able to make heads or tails of the 9/11 stuff -other than an uncanny number of anomolies and coincidences that suggest either vague complicity or supernatural retribution.
Alot of folks aren't aware of the fact that we ripped the Arabs off of billions of dollars by funelling their OPEC profits into Chase /Manhatten and then setting up holding companies { legally exempt from covering defaulted loans } that made a series of recklesssly generous loans to South of the border Dictater types - who then defaulted on their loans. CHase collected the collateral - usually in the form of mineral rights /land resources and sold them off to the highest Multi-national bidders, and left the Arabs hilding an empty bag - and due to a banking clause - applicable only to Chase - it was all perfectly legal. But that was then, back in the days of Kissinger and Nixon - before the Arabs really got to hating " our freedom loving ways ." Though i'm guessing more than a few Oil SHeiks felt like the Twin Towers were built with their money...
But i digress ...unlike the Twin Towers, there is significant indication and some hard evidence that the Chechnyans have been victomized and that many { possibly even most } of the horrorific acts credited to them were actually conducted by the State, or agents working in collusion with politically ambitious individuals. In olden times it was " follow the money " , but now it's follow the OIL .
Ed wrock Dog
I've never been able to make heads or tails of the 9/11 stuff -other than an uncanny number of anomolies and coincidences that suggest either vague complicity or supernatural retribution.
Alot of folks aren't aware of the fact that we ripped the Arabs off of billions of dollars by funelling their OPEC profits into Chase /Manhatten and then setting up holding companies { legally exempt from covering defaulted loans } that made a series of recklesssly generous loans to South of the border Dictater types - who then defaulted on their loans. CHase collected the collateral - usually in the form of mineral rights /land resources and sold them off to the highest Multi-national bidders, and left the Arabs hilding an empty bag - and due to a banking clause - applicable only to Chase - it was all perfectly legal. But that was then, back in the days of Kissinger and Nixon - before the Arabs really got to hating " our freedom loving ways ." Though i'm guessing more than a few Oil SHeiks felt like the Twin Towers were built with their money...
But i digress ...unlike the Twin Towers, there is significant indication and some hard evidence that the Chechnyans have been victomized and that many { possibly even most } of the horrorific acts credited to them were actually conducted by the State, or agents working in collusion with politically ambitious individuals. In olden times it was " follow the money " , but now it's follow the OIL .
Pages
Add a new comment