Russia's chief investigator said the explosion was the work of terrorists. TEA Party activists

fixed- try it now

Violent Rhetoric?

Vitriole.

Amish?

It's a good thing that the International Olympic committee gave the 2014 winter olypics to russia. Sochi is right near chechnya, so it won't be a long drive for the terrorists to get to the olympics.

A bomb in Moscow?  uhm, no, I hadn't heard.

Class, your assignment today is to take the most recent act of violence and write a story using the following words:

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Tea Party, Republican Party, gun control, violent rhetoric, target, crosshairs, vitriole, horrific.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:16 AM (kwo94)

This.  Looking at what the Rooskis border and their *wonderful* Afghanistan experience I'm surprised there hasn't been more of this.

It's a good thing that the International Olympic committee gave the 2014 winter olypics to russia. Sochi is right near chechnya, so it won't be a long drive for the terrorists to get to the olympics.

Don't worry.  Once the Russians retake Georgia and procure all the Western weapon caches there, they'll use the weaponry to level Grozny into the ground again right before the Olympics. 

Posted by: havedash at January 24, 2011 10:19 AM (sFD5n)

Pooty Poot has the added stress of maintaining his tough-guy image while keeping the rest of his large muzzy population peaceful.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  Didn't he publicly execute the last two ejits who bombed the subway system?  The grade-school executions appear to have gone unanswered. 

As for the airports, I'm sure they'll ask el-Al for security tips.

Steevy,

How about you take the apologist bullshit out back, m'kay?

No, I would not, in fact, load up a bunch of explosives and deliberately target innocent people to make a cowardly point.

There have been some mall plots thwarted here in America, in 2006 a member of the religion of peace attempted to purchase explosives from an FBI mole to use at Cherryvale Mall in Rockford, IL.  From Fox News:

A man has been arrested by federal agents on charges of planning to set off hand grenades at an Illinois shopping mall on Dec. 22 as part of his plan to commit "violent jihad" against civilians.

Derrick Shareef, 22, of Rockford, was arrested when he carried out a rendezvous with an undercover agent in a parking lot to trade a set of stereo speakers for four grenades and a handgun.

Federal officials said he planned to place the grenades in garbage cans at the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, about 90 miles northwest of Chicago..."He fixated on...December 22.....because it was the Friday before Christmas and thought that would be the highest concentration of shoppers that he could kill and injure".

Posted by: CDR M at January 24, 2011 10:19 AM (5I8G0)

Hell, they've already done that.  Remember Bloomberg and his "it might be an angry white guy who's unhappy with health legislation" jab after the attempted Times Square bombing?  And of course the Tucson shooting, which wasn't even a terrorist act but was treated like one and was somehow the fault of the Tea Party (and its figureheads). 

If a successful attack ever DOES take place in this country (God forbid), they won't even bother with the hypotheticals.  "It's those damned right-wingers!  HANG THE TEA PARTY!"  And the Islamists will sit at home, sipping their tea and laughing their asses off.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:30 AM (kwo94)

You have got to be shitting us.

The murder of innocents perpetrated by a terrorist group is always evil. There is no justification.

You know why this happened right? Because we didn't pass START fast enough.

and global warming. Don't forget about global warming

How bout you go fuck yourself,m'kay?

Care to defend you stupid argument (which at face value is just an anti-Russian rant of the kind that with a simple name change many in the Borg hive of stupid use against the U.S.) or do you prefer to just default to namecalling?

Terrorism is terrorism.  End of discussion.

As I said in the other thread, I'm sure that many of the victims aren't even Russians, as this airport is an international hub.  If this is the work of the Chechens, they haven't even taken care to solely target Russian nationals. 

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:30 AM (kwo94)

You have got to be shitting us.

The murder of innocents perpetrated by a terrorist group is always evil. There is no justification.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 24, 2011 10:37 AM (LH6ir)

Apparently steevy thinks killing women and children (and civilians in general) is just peachy, if they happen to be former Commie Russkie women and children.

That about right, steevy?

Modern Warfare 2 did it better.

Seriously, my condolences to the families.  That said, it isn't surprising.  I've said before that most of these groups don't really understand the Western mentality, and thus don't really know where to strike to be most effective.  Unfortunately, that may be changing...

Security is oriented towards keeping bombs off planes, but almost none at all is directed at keeping bombs out of the airports themselves, where all those people are bunched up together.

it's impossible to guard against this.  Wherever you put security, the waiting crowd is right in front of that.  This is why this sort of terrorism can only be handled by going on the offensive, in a ruthless and decisive way.  Terrorists' families and neighborhoods need to suffer from the slime they've produced, at least as much as the rest of us suffer from their progeny.

Of course, this goes against the Western concept of individualism and fairness (on individual terms) but these terrorists aren't individualists and don't come from individualistic societies.  They need to be dealt with in a way that they all comprehend, not a way that makes us feel good for a moment, but is totally ineffective in the end.

David Brooks would have a boner so hard it could cut glass.

Amazing visual. 

This is to get the Russians to do -- what exactly? Things that they won't do. Murdering the public actually strengthens the hand of the current government.

But mass murder does feed the collective mind of a weird death cult. That was accomplished.

All for nothing.

I didn't say I would do what the Chechens have done.Brutality breeds brutality though.You might start off with purely military targets but if the reprisals come against civilians you are likely to become callous.

Thanks for sharing. I needed my daily dose of moral equivalency.

All for nothing.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at January 24, 2011 10:42 AM (5YgO+)

It always is....

When did I say it was right?

Somwhere in this geenral vicinity if my reading comprehension has not completely deserted me:

Let me ask you this:If a brutal power took over your homeland and crushed your conventional ability to resist,would you not strike back any way you could?

Let me ask you this:If a brutal power took over your homeland and crushed your conventional ability to resist,would you not strike back any way you could?

Who's homeland got taken?  Always those poor disaffected practictioners of the religion of peace, huh?  They just can't find a strip of land anywhere to call their own.  Maybe Great Britain will suffice.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:42 AM (kwo94)

And your original comment implied that any one of us Morons would be willing to sink to the level of these monsters, just out of human nature:

"Let me ask you this:If a brutal power took over your homeland and crushed your conventional ability to resist,would you not strike back any way you could?"

I might agree that human nature puts the temptation in any man's mind to retaliate in that subhuman way to outrageous harm -- such is our legacy from our animal heritage.  But I respectfully submit that if you think that it's human nature to act on that impulse, to commit the actual murder of innocents, you ought to go fuck yourself sideways with a pineapple.

Posted by: alGore at January 24, 2011 10:46 AM

How do you reload a suicide bomber? Scrape him up with a broom and dustpan?

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:45 AM (kwo94)

The people in the airport did not sow anything.

I might point out that your argument parallels the idea that the 9/11 attacks were blowback. I reject your argument.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 24, 2011 10:46 AM (LH6ir)

This doesn't smack of sacrifice, just simple carelessness over civilian safety.  I might be more willing to put it down to some apparatchik pocketing funds that were earmarked for airport security: the Russians have always done that kind of thing too.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 24, 2011 10:46 AM (LH6ir)

Exactly.  It cuts down on costs, and means there are fewer people standing in line for food, praying it'll be oranges so they can fight off scurvy.  That kind of image doesn't play well in the press.

Does Russia use the Euro now?  When the new-communism-same-as-the-old-communism takes over in Russia, its people need to know what currency to pile in their wheelbarrows when they go to buy a loaf of wormy bread.

100 Agreed.Nobody said it was rational.Vicious cycle turns people into animals.The Russians rap what they've sown.

Do you also have the point of view that those two huge gaping holes in the ground in lower Manhatten is evidence that the US is reaping what we have sown?

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:43 AM (kwo94)

Thanks for the confirmation.  It's so rare that people honestly own up to the stupid shit they say.  It's human nature, after all, to try to weasel out of it rather than apologize and clarify.

"May have been" a suicide bomber?

Next they'll tell us it was committed by a "disaffected youth."

Posted by: Cherry π at January 24, 2011 10:40 AM (+sBB4)

Right next to the Starbucks.

Good catch, Cherry.  Expect anti-globalization anarchist praise for attack in 3... 2... 1...

Posted by: moi at January 24, 2011 10:45 AM (Ez4Ql)

Uh ... we do maintain a strategic nuclear arsenal, you know.  Killing civilians is part of war.  It always has been.

51, etc. Except of course, of all the nations that Russia has invaded and brutalized over the decades, which one resorted to targeting women and children?  The Ukranians?  The Poles?  The Balts?  The Georgians?  Why no.  Only the religion of submission.   

The brutality comes from the indiscriminate reprisals.

This is where semantics matter.  "Indiscrimate" has a very specific meaning.  Example:  To have truly indiscriminately retaliated for 9/11, the U.S. could have nuked Mecca or carpet bombed Kabul with napalm for a week.

And, like the Arab-Israeli conflict, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Russians did not, in fact, start this particular cycle of violence.

You sound like a Hamas shill, Steevy.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:53 AM (kwo94)

Oh, it was no trouble at all.  I don't consider it going out of my way to insult someone who states in so many words that I and people I associate with would naturally be unable to resist the provocation to murder innocent civilians by the dozens.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:30 AM (kwo94)

I wouldn't bomb innocent civilians no matter what.  There is a difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, no matter what apologists say.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 24, 2011 10:55 AM (QV82F)

Historical note: the Zodiac killer threatened to bomb a school bus and then gun down the "kiddies" as they spilled out.

And the Chowchilla kidnappers actually hijacked a school bus and took all the kids hostage.

Killing civilians is part of war.  It always has been.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, and Last, Brain Cell - The Sane One at January 24, 2011 10:54 AM (AK0dh)

I think moi's point was that, as a "civilian combatant" (ie, guerilla fighter, freedom fighter, terrorist), killing innocent civilians -- especially children -- would nevertheless be abhorrent on an individual level.  Targeting a school deliberately because it's a school would be anathema.

But agreed that the wider issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage as part of military strikes is, sadly, one of the traditional costs of war. 

we do maintain a strategic nuclear arsenal, you know.

Hah.  Not for much longer, if Barry O. Bammy has his way.

The Russians actually did play a huge part in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Maybe I wasn't clear--The Arabs and their apologists routinely accuse the Israelis of a war of aggression and theft in 1948 when it was the Arab states that started the war.

See the parallel?

But agreed that the wider issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage as part of military strikes is, sadly, one of the traditional costs of war. 

There is an enormous moral gulf between unintended civilian deaths and deliberatley targeting them. 

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:59 AM (kwo94)

You don't get it, do you?  You said ALL OF US HERE, personally, were indiscriminate:

"Let me ask you this:If a brutal power took over your homeland and crushed your conventional ability to resist,would you not strike back any way you could?"

Are you going to apologize for the implication?

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 10:30 AM (kwo94)

I'd organize a peace march that would put the fear of Allah in you, is what.  I'd wear an awareness ribbon daily.  I would organize a "letter to the editor" campaign the likes of which has not been seen since Julius Caesar.

Do you really think it's "defending the sacred homeland" rather than "funded and incited by fundamentalist Islam"?  Cuz I'm leaning toward the latter, though I'm keeping an open mind.

that wasn't nice...or helpful

It wasn't meant to be either!

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 24, 2011 11:04 AM (QV82F)

They planned ahead: they buried a cargo container beforehand, ditched the bus and put the kids into the buried container.

But given the media's tendency to label terrorists "freedom fighters,"

The current nomenclature is "extremist" or "militant" as opposed to my preffered term "evil mofos."

Posted by: gp at January 24, 2011 11:04 AM (B9rV2)

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that we attack the bombers, and the people who support them? That means attacking them where they live and work. But...we can't do that! The world would hate us! And killing terrorists in their home countries would simply create more terrorists. Look at how many terrorist attacks have occurred in America since 9/11, all because Bush had to satisfy his urge to kill by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. Fascist!

Posted by: gp at January 24, 2011 11:04 AM (B9rV2)

*GASP*  Are you advocating PROFILING?  And summarial justice? EVIL NAZI RIGHT WINGER!

*sounds of a scuffle*

*lullabies being sung*

*door quietly closing*

Sorry, that was the hysterical leftist I usually keep chained up in my basement.  I've put him back to bed now.  He's been feeling fractious since Keefums went bye-bye from MSNBC.

Posted by: alGore at January 24, 2011 10:46 AM

How do you reload a suicide bomber? Scrape him up with a broom and dustpan?

It is EXACTLY this type of rhetoric on suicide bomber radio talk shows that incites this kind of violence.

Posted by: steevy at January 24, 2011 11:01 AM (kwo94)

Posted my 175 before I saw this -- thank you.  (Unfortunately, I can think of the relatives of some 3,000 Americans just from 9/11 who already know how it feels, directly -- I was in New York City on 9/11 and saw the Twin Towers burning, so I feel it pretty personally .)

The current nomenclature is "extremist" or "militant" as opposed to my preffered term "evil mofos."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 24, 2011 11:07 AM (B+qrE)

True, true.  Very true.  Just so long as we remember to never, EVER indicate what they are "extreme" or "militant" about (a certain religion that must not be named *le cough*).

I flied through Moscow last May (different Airport). A security procedure was better than in USA. To enter to airport you have to scan luggage and get trough pat down procedure.

Based on Russian internet sites, the blast was in international arrival area (baggage claim area)  

Posted by: Kristopher at January 24, 2011 11:09 AM (atS82)

Amen, brother.  That was the last war we fought to win, and we've made lots of messes since trying to fight humane wars.

180 Ehem, I give you "misunderstander" -- they only do bad things because they misunderstand (and are of course misunderstood, and thus oppressed).

Steevy -- you said in the thread below you would explain your position better; well, maybe you did but it still isn't convincing me.

Whoever said above that a simple change of "Russian" to "American" and you'd be making something like Code Pink's arguements was right.  But ok, you hate Russians, all of them -- we get it.

56  Da

/rimshot...

And we heard Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house...

Today she looked out her window, and watched it explode...

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, muslims can now get back to reclaiming Moscow as the 79th most holy site of Islam.

I don't need to know what the question is becuse a lot of the time the answer is pussy!  Case in point, want to get laid for an eternity, here ya go, strap this on, pull this when we tell you to pull it and when you wake up wa- la - more ass than you can shake you pecker at for an eternity.  Maybe Bristol Palin and The Situation should start an abstinence campaign for the afterlife, it might just end terrorism?

Posted by: CDR M at January 24, 2011 11:19 AM (5I8G0)

Yeah... the only thing which has been really saving us, is the Muzzy general lack of knowledge about how we do business, and a lack of imagination...

That, and basic technical competence...

I recently had this discussion with a couple of Ret. Spec War types I've known for many years, and the plans we came up with over a bottle of Scotch were pretty dang scary.

129  Actually Curious is very correct about one very important key here:

the Chechens are very strong supporters of the Islamic jihad; if people think that they will any longer choose solely Russian targets, then those people are incorrect; this is no longer just about Chechen rights -- it is about global Islamic jihad...they will just dress it up in Chechen rights (which no, the Russians have given people good reason to cry "oppression" but that point is at this point moot).  This seems to be one of the modus operandi of most Islamic jihad groups -- the jihad is the fight against oppression (and nobody likes to see people oppressed)...but that is only on the surface.  The jihad is only for the jihad -- time for people to quit kidding themselves...or suffer the consequences.

Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2011 11:41 AM (M9Ie6)

Amen.  I'd modify their approach a bit, though.  Rather than forcing everyone to become Catholics, I'd prefer to simply force everyone to be something other than Muz.  Beyond that, though, I'd say a good fire-and-sword purge should be carried out with vigor.

steevy:  I'm not going to pile on you, but I think I'll express my argument and how I'm reading your argument, and you can tell me if I'm right?

Your original statements seemed to claim - legitimately, I think - that the Chechens have good cause to despise the Russians.  You also noted that this righteous anger may be one source of the murderous impulse that leads them to brutally attack civilian targets; essentially "an eye for an eye."

I can see your point from a psychological perspective, but not on a mass scale.  The desire to attack and murder soft civilian targets in retaliation for ongoing abuses sounds like the diagnosis of a man who's been struck with the tragedy of seeing his family butchered, and who seeks vengeance on their behalf.  In some ways we can feel for that man and understand his pain and his motivation, but we could never condone the slaughter of civilians and innocents as retribution for an act perpetrated by a state (via its military).   The reasons do not justify the results, and the perpetrator would need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law, with little to no leniency granted due to the extenuating circumstances of his family's death.

If we were to extend that diagnosis to an entire population -- the Chechens -- then essentially we're calling all of them deranged lunatics who need to be punished, but whose actions need to be viewed through the filter of "extenuating circumstances."  (I would argue that militant Islam is largely comprised of deranged lunatics, but not because of abuses visited upon them so much as because of their hellbent determination to slaughter the infidel.)  Personally, I reject that argument.  One person losing their mind as a result of brutality is a terrible tragedy.  An entire group of people losing their mind as a result of brutality is a rebellion, not a tragedy, and in a perfect world it would be conducted in a diplomatic fashion among heads of state.  In an imperfect world, it's carried out between warring militaries, with civilian casualties ideally kept to a minimum.  In a sick world, it's carried out by terrorists who go for the soft underbelly of a country by attacking its civilians, especially their emotional core -- the children. 

And that of course brings up the question of who struck first, the Russians or the Chechens?  Which side was the first to strike, and which was the first to strike a civilian target (deliberately or by accident)?  I admit to not knowing much about the germination of the conflict, and I've really only become familiar with it in recent years, so I can't say which side is to blame for starting the fight.  But I CAN say that neither side is justified, for whatever reason, in killing innocent civilians. 

I think other posters have made good points that other victims of Russian oppression -- pretty much all of Eastern Europe -- never resorted to such acts of violence against civilians, despite truly horrific treatment at the hands of the Soviets.  All else being equal, you have to look at the differences between the parties that might account for the ongoing hostilities.  The most glaring difference between eastern Europe and Chechnya -- though not the only one -- is the dominant religions: versions of Christianity or Judaism in the former, Islam in the latter.  Given the prevalence of Islam as a precursor for terrorist violence, I'm more willing to lay the blame for this most recent act -- and all previous acts -- at the feet of militant Islam, not righteous anger and hatred.

So in short (too late!), I think we all more or less agree.  We all agree that there is no justification for the murder of innocent civilians.  Most of us, however, do not accept the condition that Russia's treatment of Chechnya could be used to explain the Chechens' decisions to target civilians.  steevy, on the other hand, sees it as a contributing factor; but NOT a justification. 

Does that sound about right?

(My apologies for the lengthy soliloquoy.  Sometimes I have to type this stuff out to really figure out what I'M thinking, let alone anyone else!)

Amen.  I'd modify their approach a bit, though.  Rather than forcing everyone to become Catholics, I'd prefer to simply force everyone to be something other than Muz.  Beyond that, though, I'd say a good fire-and-sword purge should be carried out with vigor.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 24, 2011 11:44 AM (xUM1Q)

Key is the making a Legal Finding that Islam is not a Religion, so much as a Political/Legal System Disguised as a relgion.

We can outlaw the Political / Legal part... and have done so in the past (Communists, Nazis)... and were even able to try some of the adherents of said systems as Traitors...

Islam as a Political/Legal system DOES want to destroy the American system... and replace it... and we need to recognize it for what it is.

--we do maintain a strategic nuclear arsenal, you know.

--Hah. Not for much longer, if Barry O. Bammy has his way.

Posted by: MWR at January 24, 2011 11:01 AM (4df7R)

--You are now out of brain cells, Chuck: If the enemy hides among civilians, they are responsible for civilian deaths - not us.

Posted by: moi at January 24, 2011 11:09 AM (Ez4Ql)

--Killing civilians has not "always been part of war". It has come and gone over time. Following the 100 years war the major Western powers decided that indiscriminate killing of civilians was not a moral way of doing war and it was avoided.

The Western powers had to come to viewing war as nothing but a little game between themselves.  Their rules only applied to their own internal fighting, and then, only applied until one side needed to use those tactics, or just wanted to.

--The current rules of land war forbid intentional targeting of civilians but they also forbid stationing military targets near civilians as well. In that event, if civilians die then it is considered the fault of the military in the targeted country.

Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2011 11:22 AM (M9Ie6)

"Security is oriented towards keeping bombs off planes, but almost none at all is directed at keeping bombs out of the airports themselves, where all those people are bunched up together. (Of course a lot of places of even lower security, like malls, have that property.)"

When I went to Bangalore last fall, the people waiting to meet arriving passengers were not allowed in the airport and had to stand across the street from the airport. I had to search through the crowd to find my colleague, and I'm told this is standard practice.

At the hotel, there were at least two security guards stationed out front at all times, and they frisked all employees entering the hotel and checked under all vehicles with a rolling mirror before they were allowed to park in the underground garage. If a vehicle loitered two minutes in the street, security would go out and tell then to leave.

I went to three different malls while I was there, and I went through a metal detector to enter each one and security was searching all backpacks, purses and bags that people brought in. Inside the malls, there were security people everywhere, including one stationed at the top and bottom of every escalator and in front of every elevator door.

When I left, an attractive female Indian soldier armed with an MP5 checked my passport and the Emirates passenger list to ensure that I had a ticket before I was allowed to enter Bangalore International. Once inside and checked-in, I was not permitted to go back outside to have a cigarette prior to my flight to Dubai.

A few weeks after I left, someone detonated a bomb at a Hindu religious gathering in the Indian city of Varanasi. A group called "The Indian Mujahedin" claimed responsibility. It doesn't matter how much security you have; if some flake thinks his God wants him to kill people, then he will usually find a way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the extra security limits the opportunities for attacks. Still, it is probably better to be proactive, and to target the terrorists before they target you.

The Chechens have valid political squabbles with the Russians

This is true, but the Chechens are animals. Osama bin Laden used Chechens as his bodyguards because they were so vicious. The things they did to captured Russian soldiers are drawn straight from a sadist's nightmares. They brutalized and murdered schoolchildren at Beslan. Let's not start getting misty for the Chechens.

Putin needs to just keep sucking up to Iran and helping them with their nuke program, and then they will be his friend.  Because apparently Putin thinks any enemy of the US is his friend.  Iran will at least save them til last when there's no one else left to help.

That's right Pooty... give Iran the weapon it needs to destroy you.