Crosswords1 min ago
School siege again
45 Answers
Surely this was a massive own goal by the Chechyan (sp?) freedom fighters where as anyone who might have been symathetic to the their cause would surely turn against them after the slaughter of innocent children?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree totally. I sent the first day of the siege arguing with my girlfriend that we have to understand what the Checheyns are going through on a daily basis at home and that it must be horrific to drive them to such desperate measures. But by the end, I totally turned against them.
Terrorism needs widespread international support in order to be successful. These guys have merely succeeded in alienating the whole of civilised society purely due to the involvement of children which isn't going to do their cause any good.
Er, no... I suggested you might be a twit because you just suggested genocide was the solution to terrorism.
Are you seriously suggesting that all Chechens support the terrorist atrocity we've just seen? No more than all the supporters of Irish independance supported the IRA, all the supporters of Palisistinian independance support suicide bombing or all the supporters of a USA-free Middle EaSt support Al Quaeda.
And are you suggesting that all of those innocent people should be on the recieving end of an autrocity several magnitudes larger than that which has already occured?
The danger is that one sticks labels in place - evil, murderous, racist etc. Individuals may be any or all of these things, but an entire nation? The start of a very dangerous slide.
I don't agree or support in any way the action taken by the Chechen terrorists, but I do at least understand why it happened. Russia's continuing insistance on refusing to engage Chechenya in dialogue is down to their fears of what will happpen to other regions if they do. To see it simply in terms of 'some evil people came and did an evil thing' simply encourages the lack of understanding which leads to such situations in the first place.
Some Chechens are so frustrated by the situation that they carry out these autrocities - I agree with the questioner that such acts are normally own goals and rarely achieve their aim. I also agree that such acts should not be rewarded with concessions.
I do, however, believe that at some point there has to be meaningful dialogue. This is how Nelson Mandela has managed to create a South Africa that, although undoubtely beset with many problems, did not decend in to anarchy. Mandela was insightful enough to understand that without breaking the cycle of violence, there could be no chance of reconcilliation.
Where does your solution take us again?
Are you seriously suggesting that all Chechens support the terrorist atrocity we've just seen? No more than all the supporters of Irish independance supported the IRA, all the supporters of Palisistinian independance support suicide bombing or all the supporters of a USA-free Middle EaSt support Al Quaeda.
And are you suggesting that all of those innocent people should be on the recieving end of an autrocity several magnitudes larger than that which has already occured?
The danger is that one sticks labels in place - evil, murderous, racist etc. Individuals may be any or all of these things, but an entire nation? The start of a very dangerous slide.
I don't agree or support in any way the action taken by the Chechen terrorists, but I do at least understand why it happened. Russia's continuing insistance on refusing to engage Chechenya in dialogue is down to their fears of what will happpen to other regions if they do. To see it simply in terms of 'some evil people came and did an evil thing' simply encourages the lack of understanding which leads to such situations in the first place.
Some Chechens are so frustrated by the situation that they carry out these autrocities - I agree with the questioner that such acts are normally own goals and rarely achieve their aim. I also agree that such acts should not be rewarded with concessions.
I do, however, believe that at some point there has to be meaningful dialogue. This is how Nelson Mandela has managed to create a South Africa that, although undoubtely beset with many problems, did not decend in to anarchy. Mandela was insightful enough to understand that without breaking the cycle of violence, there could be no chance of reconcilliation.
Where does your solution take us again?
Let's see elimination of Chechens = no Chechen terrorists - brutal but simple.
Start of a dangerous slide - bloody hell how much lower we yet to descend.
Don't compare the IRA with these child-killers - the 'RA never deliberately targetted children - sure they cocked up warnings badly sometimes but they never did anything like this.
You talk of such acts raely achieving their aims - I don't think we've had such bestial acts before.
Tell me, would you have advocated dialogue with the Nazis and understood why theGermans voted them in in the first place?
EliPledge - I, too, empathise with your anger, but such radical solutions as you are advocatin are not solutions; they are simply extrapolating the terrorism to another degree. Hitler saw genocide as the "Final Solution". Do you agree with him and his [insanely] genuinely held beliefs?
I suggest you keep quiet till the first emotions of your grief have subsided.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.