Deja vu all over again

As you might imagine, I’m a little busy here this morning. The bombs on the Metro have caused 30+ reported deaths and another 40 injured so far but reports are still coming in. Responsibility has been claimed by a muslim separatist group from Chechnya – though they are most active currently in Dagestan where there have been 19 terrorist attacks so far this year. It is the same group which claimed responsibility for the attack on the Moscow – St Petersburg express in November.

The attacks were made on the busiest line on the Moscow Metro, one on an interchange in the suburbs, Park Kulturyi, and one on a very busy interchange in the centre right underneath the HQ of the Federal Security Bureau, successor to the Soviet KGB. The attacks were timed for maximum effect at the peak of the rush hour. I was fortunate that I left for work before the explosions occurred – the one in the centre being about half a mile from where I live and the second one being next to the road i travel every morning to get to the office and about a half-mile away, again.

The metro is still running, but getting into the centre is a nightmare and traffic is almost grid-locked.

Al Jazeera is carrying the best reports – you may find these links interesting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/08/2009817141410883512.html

PS. The blog title refers to personal experience. N. Ireland, Germany, London, Serbia and now Moscow. One moment people are going about their everyday business, the next they are lying in the rubble and chaos shocked, stunned and bleeding – or worse, in little red, wet gobbets spread around the scene. And you wonder why I go on about terrorists. Ask yourself this, where does the money come from to finance these groups – but better yet, don’t ask me, ask TTM and Levent.

132 thoughts on “Deja vu all over again”

  1. The money coming from the opium in Afghanistan became like ten folds, after the invasion.
    I don’t know if you find it simplistic, every single penny (in USD) can be traced by USA. And there are not millions of gun manufacturers.

    I’m not trying to advocate those bastards calling themselves muslims. I’m just saying they are just the other side of the coin.

  2. Nice to hear that you’re OK

    I heard this on our early news this morning and immediately thought of you.

    Keep safe.

  3. Levent, sorry, the mpney flowing onto the Balkans and the Caucasus, financing mosque building on the surface… is coming from a bit closer to home. Look South East, no, past Iran 🙂

  4. Bravo,

    So glad you didn’t get caught up in this cowardly shit.

    I understand your anger chum, luckily I never experienced an explosion first hand, but I’ve lived with the fallout and the threat for long enough.

    Stay alert chum, I know I don’t need to tell you but anger can cloud your judgement. Your eyes and your training are the best weapon you have.

  5. Thanks for the update, Bravo, and sorry to hear one of your staff is a casualty. What do these muslims hope to achieve by this? Take care on the way home.

  6. Sheona, “What do these muslims hope to achieve by this?” Have you seen the number of mosques springing up throughout Europe? Have you seen the concessions that the Muslim world has extracted from the rest of us? It strikes me that their methods are working. Islam is growing stronger. They are achieving a great deal.

    As for being cowards, I totally disagree. Anyone who wittingly blows himself up for a cause is either deranged or very brave. I do not see how cowardice enters into it. The 9/11 bombers were obviously sufficiently intelligent enough to carry out their mission which they had planned for a long time. They were certainly not cowards. Evil yes, but also very brave.

  7. Sipu. Do you think there is a difference between ‘brave’ and ‘fanatical?’ In fact, your head is filled with superstition to the extent that you are prepared to blow yourself to smithereens on the strength of it , i would suggest that ‘insane’ would be a better description.

    The latest reports here are saying that it was, indeed, two suicide bombers both, apparently, female.

  8. Thank you Bravo. I cannot see how anyone can describe people as brave who have been brainwashed into thinking that they are doing is ‘worthwhile’ by murdering people they have never met. Fanatical is the word I was seeking.

    I believe the Chechens want independence.

  9. “your head is filled with superstition to the extent that you are prepared to blow yourself to smithereens on the strength of it ” replace superstition with patriotism, blowing with sacrificing your life in the field.

    And this virgin thing is highly exaggerated.

  10. Bravo, I think that there is possibly a very fine line between the two and certainly depends on ones’s point of view. What we might describe as fanaticism they might look upon as being logical rational and heroic. Their actions are rational as far as they are concerned because they believe that they will lead to the spread of Islam which is the will of Allah. The evidence that it works is there for all to see. Islam is growing. They may be wrong in believing in a divinity, but it is hardly irrational. Most of the world would be thus described if that were the case. They also believe that they will be rewarded for their actions, though as you say I am not sure how the 72 virgins work in their case.

    Going over the top in WW1 into the face of enemy fire was hardly rational except for the fact that you would have been shot by your own side if you did not. So there was a 20% chance of surviving if you did go, but a 0% chance if you did not. Where does bravery fit into that? I don’t mean to sound dismissive of the debt we owe those men, I am purely debating ideas.

  11. Bravo,

    I disagree. Only the names change, the logic is the same. “All is fair in love and war”, is a word that does not belong east, btw.

  12. Sipu. Levent, ‘I think you are stretching a point here – especially in light of your #18.

    Sipu, I think you’re stretching a point too. Do you think that a, those soldiers who went over the top and walked, slowly, into massed machine gun fire* were concerned only with the guns of the battle police behind them? A little simplistic, I feel.

    I will leave the irrational belief in gods, fairies and other superstitious mummery for another blog. Obsession of whatever flavour, however, can hardly be described as rational, wouldn’t you say?

    *I do not understand the stupidity and lack of imagination, either. Especially since there were examples of tactics that worked, or, at least, had a better chance of working, being played out every day between the lines. If a soldier in most modern armies were told to stand up, put on a heavy load and walk slowly towards a machine gun, his reply would be unprintable. See, however, Iranian tactics in the Iran/Iraq war.

  13. Levent, you are right. Patriotism is as logical as religious belief.

    In a democracy who is innocent? Who after all elected the leaders who send their soldiers to fight us?
    Why are women and children any more innocent than men?
    Why are the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad any more justifiable than the bombing of New York, London, Madrid and Moscow?
    War is not be a sport. It should only be waged to end a wrong and it should be carried out as swiftly and effectively as possible with minimum of suffering, loss of life (any life), and property.
    The rules of war are largely there to sanitize an unpalatable necessity. They are for the most part, irrelevant.

    One could well argue that more is achieved by terrorism for a considerably smaller loss of life than is gained through full scale conventional war with all the death, destruction and cost that accompany it.

  14. Sipu :

    One could well argue that more is achieved by terrorism for a considerably smaller loss of life than is gained through full scale conventional war with all the death, destruction and cost that accompany it.

    Only if it is allowed to achieve anything. I would direct your attention to the Malaya (as was, campaign and the Indonesian confrontation as just two examples.

    What success terrorism has achieved has been against moral weakness – Nothern Ireland is a case in point, as is the current confrontation with islam.

    Levent. Tell me, for example, of the logic of confronting National Socialism with deadly force, and Sipu, too, for that matter?

  15. Copy from another blog.

    In light of the events in Moscow, particularly since it appears that the two suicide bombers were females, any more thoughts on the killing of the old men with beards who send these dupes out to do their dirty business, instead of the poor suckers who fall for the superstitious bullshit?

    The guy who sent these two out, it would seem, though there is as yet no confirmation, is called Doku Umarov. A suitable case for treatment,

  16. Hmmm, this is a bit confusing for me. And I am ignorant about history.

    War is a part of humanity. It was, it is and it will be. (Which is why I find “turn the other cheek utopic and unrealistic)

    But even wars should be fought within “codes”. Civilian killings can not be justified. Of course that begs the question, according to which moral/code/law etc. I’m speaking from a very personal point. (Though, whichever reference you take, no justification is possible).

    It doesn’t matter if the civilian killings are made by states (ie Baghdad, Hiroshima) or by suicide bombers.

    And Sipu, regarding innocence, upto a point what you say makes a little sense. If I’m not mistaken majority of UK public was against Iraq invasion. I’m not even talking about that the public are not holding guns.

  17. Levent. It is of little use talking about the attacks on Japan and Baghdad in this context. The attacks on Japan were in an entirely different context, while the attacks on Baghdad* were aimed at military targets.

    Terrorist attacks are aimed deliberately and with malice aforethought on non-military ‘targets.’ The aim is to terrorise.

    Kev. Because the money comes from a source that affects muslims as much, if not more, as it affects others.

    I assume Gulf 2 is being referred to here, rather than the operation to liberate Kuwait. Even so, the comment stands.

  18. B2CC, I really am pushed for time today. Lots to do etc.

    So if you could perhaps expand on your thoughts and I will get back to you as soon as possible ….. and see if we agree or not.

  19. Bravo, I am not sure the purpose of your question, but the logic behind going to war with Germany was to right a wrong. It cost 10’s of millions of lives and changed the world order. Is the world a better place now than it would have been? Who is to say? At some point Hitler would have either died at the hands of an assassin or of natural causes, or he may have just mellowed. War was not enough to prevent the Holocaust. How much further would he or could he have gone? Suffice it to say that the war was very very expensive in human terms and led to the rise of Soviet Russia, communist China, the Cold War and the end of the Empire.

    A lot depends on how you define terrorism. Who does and who has the right to legitamise warfare? Given that France had surrendered to Germany in 1940 could one not argue that the French Resistance was a terrorist organisation? Were those who tried to assassinate Hitler terrorists?

    Are/were Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe terrorists? They struggled for democracy pursuing attacks against civilians. Democracy is little more than a concept in that it does not guarantee health, wealth or happiness any more or less than religion does. The majority of Africans were better off under a minority regime than they are now but they held the concept of universal franchise to be more important.

  20. Janus, violence delayed the advent of power-sharing, in my opinion. The IRA/Sinn Féin could have competed for votes within the nationalist community (or even in the two communities, as a left-wing offshoot attempted to do).

    In general, the IRA campaign was counterproductive as well as wrong, and a failure. We are no closer to a united Ireland now than 40 years ago … in fact we are probably farther away.

  21. B22C, yes by all means we can do this later, although I wish it to be known that I have no idea what you are driving at. That said (and I could be wrong here) I do feel that sweeping generalisation is forthcoming.

  22. oops … should read –

    That said (and I could be wrong here) I do feel that *a* sweeping generalisation is forthcoming.

  23. Sipu, you are drawing too general a net. ‘Is the world a better place now than it would have been? Who is to say…’ Maybe another 5 or 6 million jews?

    ‘…could one not argue that the French Resistance was a terrorist organisation?’ Did they carry out a campaing of deliberate attacks upon civilians?

    ‘Were those who tried to assassinate Hitler terrorists?’ Ditto.

    Was Mr Mandela a terrorist? Ditto.

    Mugabe? Yes.

    Terrorists – (Definition. People or organisations who carry our deliberate attacks upon defenceless people, for whatever cause.) are murderous vermin who have abandoned any pretence of human decency and who have abrogated the privilege of mercy.

  24. Further to my comments above: If you has said to an IRA leader in 1970, ‘In 40 years’ time, not only will Northern Ireland still exist, and still be part of the UK, but your organization will be helping to run it’, he would have laughed … but not for long.

  25. Brendano :

    typo, ‘had said’

    If you had said to a young soldier in 1969 the ‘Troubles’ would last for 30 years and some of your children may see service here as well, he would of said words to the effect ‘Dream on” or something along those lines. 🙂

    Pleased to read that you are OK B22c. An interesting blog with great comments.

  26. I haven’t managed it either, t. Yes, I’m sure you’re right. My point is that terrorism in NI did not achieve ‘success’ in its own terms or any others, contrary to what often seems to be assumed on the eastern side of the Irish Sea.

  27. Bravo, fair answers, but let me respond.
    Had the war not been fought, yes, the Jews would have been killed, but as it happened they were killed anyway. How many more would have been killed? Not sure, but almost certainly fewer than died as a result of the war? Besides, lets not pretend the war was fought to save the lives of Jews. Please do not interpret that as an anti-Semitic statement. I am merely attempting to be entirely dispassionate.

    Mandela headed the ANC and advocated attacks on civilian targets, so I guess you are saying he is/was a terrorist. Fair enough, though why you demurred from stating as much whereas you were happy to label Mugabe a terrorist is another question.

    Most of the Israeli population have served and a great many continue to serve in the armed forces. They are all potential combatants as far as their enemies are concerned. Putting them in civilian clothing does not make a difference. If it does, then attacking Arabs in civilian clothing makes the Israelis terrorists.

    In 1983 Hezbollah bombed the US Marine Barracks in Beirut “The bombing was categorised by the United States as an act of terrorism.[44]:191 But according to academic Oded Lowenheim, the U.S. Marines had become allied with the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and were actively engaging in battles, thus waiving their non-combatant status.[44]:191 The U.S. still categorised this attack as an act of terror as it was directed against off-duty servicemen, which the U.S. defines as non-combatants.” Its an interesting distinction. At what point is a soldier off duty? When he comes off sentry duty?

    If ‘innocent’ civilians are killed as part of ‘collateral damage’ where the target is military, does that render the attack legitimate? What ratio of civilian to military casualties makes it an act of terrorism?

    The fact of the matter is that powerful countries such as the US and NATO members have the ability to wage war in the conventional sense. Smaller weaker countries and nationalist movements do not. Should wealth determine the moral right to fight for one’s beliefs? Russia can wage war on Chechnya. The reverse is not true.

    Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to answer all my points, but I just think that it is important to realise that there are several ways to look at a situation and unless we see the alternative view point we may find it difficult to overcome the problems that arise therefrom.

  28. The Chinese are the only ones to have it right. After the Uigher muslim riots last time round, they scooped them off the streets and summarily shot 300 of them for the ‘encouragement of the others’ and quite right too.
    When will Westerners finally realise these people, all of them, are the enemy?
    In a bad backhand way I am extremely pleased that 9/11 happened. Up till then America was letting in muslims by the hundred thousand, subsequently they slammed the doors rather tightly shut to further immigration. A very good thing too considering we already have enough native born ones causing trouble, eg Hassan, the Ft Hood killer. Security has been beefed up on the Northern border, so many try to slip into the USA from Canada.
    Bravo, Have the Russians reintroduced internal travel permits? If they haven’t they should! Deport them all back to their Homes like Chechnya and Dagestan and tear up the railway lines! What are these people doing in Moscow in the first place? I do hope the Russians indulge in a little decimating behaviour in retribution.
    I never see any reason to change my mind that the only good one is a dead one.

    Glad to hear you personally were OK.

  29. Evening Bravo: thank goodness you are OK. I’m sorry to hear that one of your colleagues was involved though. Appalling events and I did think of you when I heard the news this morning.

  30. Sipu, you make some points that are worth discussing. Thanks for the good wishes.

    About the jews. The point was in answer to your question about what might have happened had the war not been fought and the answer was ‘perhaps’ 5 million more’ might have died – as you say, who knows, and yes, the war was fought in the national interest, not just to save jewish lives, but it is a bit of a moot point. That, I fear, is a whole other discussion and not entirely germane to the point of the blog.

    ‘Mandela headed the ANC and advocated attacks on civilian targets, so I guess you are saying he is/was a terrorist.’ I was not aware that Mr Mandela advocated attacks on civilians. I was awae that he refused to condemn them. If he took part in planning or otherwise facilitating deliberate terrorist attacks, then, in my view, that makes him a terrorist.

    ‘Most of the Israeli population have served and a great many continue to serve in the armed forces. They are all potential combatants as far as their enemies are concerned. Putting them in civilian clothing does not make a difference. If it does, then attacking Arabs in civilian clothing makes the Israelis terrorists.’

    You confuse two entirely separate cases. In case of war, an enemy soldier is a target wherever he is, (unluess in a place protected by the Geneva Conventions,) – that applies to Israeli reservists not on active duty as to any other soldier. The terrorists who carry out indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are just that, terrorists. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, nor identifiable marks, and are therefore not protected by the Geneva conventions, so attacking them when they are wearing civilian clothes can be neither legally, nor morally defined as terrorist acts.

    ‘In 1983 Hezbollah bombed the US Marine Barracks in Beirut “The bombing was categorised by the United States as an act of terrorism.[44]:191 But according to academic Oded Lowenheim, the U.S. Marines had become allied with the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and were actively engaging in battles, thus waiving their non-combatant status.[44]:191 The U.S. still categorised this attack as an act of terror as it was directed against off-duty servicemen, which the U.S. defines as non-combatants.” Its an interesting distinction. At what point is a soldier off duty? When he comes off sentry duty?’

    According to one acedemic? Sitting back and discussing acedemic points is all very well, but whether the US Marines had allied themselves with the Maronite Christians or not has nothing to do with terrorism. See my point above about attacks on soldiers.

    ‘If ‘innocent’ civilians are killed as part of ‘collateral damage’ where the target is military, does that render the attack legitimate?’

    No. Confused thinking. In wartime, an attack on a military target is legitimate. Civilians are protected under the Geneva Conventions but even then, distinction is made between deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian casualties as a result of legitimate miliary action. When your country is at war, shit happens.

    ‘What ratio of civilian to military casualties makes it an act of terrorism?’ Not a reasonable question.

    ‘The fact of the matter is that powerful countries such as the US and NATO members have the ability to wage war in the conventional sense. Smaller weaker countries and nationalist movements do not. Should wealth determine the moral right to fight for one’s beliefs? Russia can wage war on Chechnya. The reverse is not true.’

    Totally irrelevant. Such has always been the case and always will be.

    Tocino. Bullpoopoo. (Grandchildren in the house.) A terrorist is a terrorist.

  31. Tocino, I know that, but it is still bullpoopoo, neither is it a fact of life. Terrorist organisations nearly always terrorise their own more than the ‘enemy.’ That phrase is in the same league as ‘fighting for peace is like coplating for virginity.’ Fine sounding bullpoopoo.

  32. B22c. I will give you just one example. Menachem Begin, the leader of the Zionist militant Irgun. He was undoubtedly directly responsible for the deaths of many British service personnel. Britain considered him a terrorist. I doubt that anyone in Israel after independence would think of him as a terrorist?

  33. I think Tocino makes a very valid point, Bravo. Historically, many so called terrorists are now respectable politicians. I’m sure you can think of many examples.

  34. Tocino. Sigh. Why ask me? Ask yourself the question. It is not difficult.

    In legal terms, Begin was nothing. If a fatal attack was carried out on anybody, it was simple murder. Those who were tried, convicted and hanged were not charged with terrorism, but murder.

    Begin was certainly not a freedom fighter since there was no state to free. Ask yourself the question for Pete’s sake.

    (As a matter of fact, there are a lot of people in Israel who think that Begin was a terrorist – Arab and Jew alike.)

  35. Sorry, Bravo, I am not convinced by your arguments and I think you are too dismissive. But this is an emotional subject and it is unlikely that everybody will agree. I am not even sure of my own opinions. You might say it is like art, pornography or love. Difficult to define but you know it when you see it. That being said, Tocino, I am with you. Begin blew up the King David Hotel for the Zionist cause. He was a terrorist.

    Treason doth never prosper,
    what’s the reason?
    For if it prosper,
    none dare call it treason.
    (Epigrams) – Sir John Harington
    For Treason see terrorism.

  36. Araminta. The point is not at all valid. Is a terrorist a terrorist is a simple question. Remember what that question entails: the deliberate, pre-meditated conversion of an innocent person into lumps of dripping, red meat. ot as a tragic result of a legitimate act of war targetting a legitimate military target, but as a cold-blooded, directly targetted attack. That’s what we’re talking about. Yesterday I was talking to a young, blonde, blue-eyed woman. Today she was carried away from the tube train she was taking to work in buckets. Not as a tragic result of a legitimate act of war targetting a legitimate military target, but as a cold-blooded, directly targetted attack.

    Terrorism is meant to terrorise, it is nothing other than pre-meditated multiple murder. You might call someone who has carried out such acts ‘respectable.’ I call them murderers. Before you respond, just take a moment to think about buckets of bloody meat that were, yesterday, a vibrant young woman.

  37. Sipu. Ask yourself the question, it’s not difficult, nor is it necessarily emotional. I do not ask that you differentiate between terrorists of any stripe. A terrorist act is a terrorist act – a deliberate and pre-meditated attack upon innocent people with no other aim but to terrorise.

    Dismissive? Dismissive of what? Dismissing cold-blooded, premeditated multiple murder as ‘like art, pornography or love?’ You, personally, might say that – I certainly would not. ‘For treason see terrorism.’ Very cute, very intellectual, very urbane. Trivialise it as you wish, but before you do, consider those buckets of bloody meat.

  38. As always, Bravo, you choose to misunderstand or deliberately twist opinions.

    What are you trying to achieve here? Do you want to win, or convert others to your point of view? I prefer to consider these discussions as an exchange of opinions.

    We all have our views, and I suggest that we are not likely to change. We may, by discussion of such, find common ground, or even understand the other point of view.

  39. Araminta. I made a simple point. Someone who commits a terrorist act is a terrorist. I made, and make, no distinction between any group or any cause. I defined my argument. Your last comment said nothing. What is the view you have? Is a deliberate – note that carefully – a deliberate, pre-meditated attack on innocent persons in support of any cause an act of terroriam, or is it not? It’s not that difficult, is it?

    If you have another point of view, perhaps you would share it, rather than talking around the subject – which, I remind you again, is bloody lumps of meat that were, untill about five o’clock this morning, your time, people.

  40. I lived in London at the time of the IRA bombings. I never learnt to hate all the Irish or all Catholics. I don’t intend to learn to hate all Muslims now.

    It is a sad fact that virtually all the terrorist acts in the world today are committed by people who identify themselves as Muslims – the Basques being a notable exception. Whether they are following Islamic principles is neither here nor there – that’s what they say they are and the rest of the world has to accept that they believe what they are doing accords with their own version of that faith.

    I believe, and perhaps Bravo will correct me if I am wrong, that the Chechens are not fighting for Islam but are seeking independence.

    I cannot believe some of the comments here. I don’t buy into the argument that ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. Nor would I denigrate the word ‘brave’ to describe those who walk into a crowded shopping mall or board a train with the express purpose of murdering people. Brain-washed, deluded, vain, and evil – yes, but not brave, never that.

    These terrorists are cowards. They strike without warning and murder those who do not have the power to give them what they seek. What power did Bravo’s colleague have to persuade Putin to give the Chechens their independence? None whatsoever. And do not anyone start talking about ‘electorates being responsible for governments’.

    If these people targeted those in government I might (only might) have a little respect for them. But they don’t. They pick easy targets.

  41. Apologies, Bravo if that wasn’t very coherent. It’s early morning and I’m still stunned and spluttering at some of the comments here…

  42. Bravo you will never get through to fence sitters until it touches them directly. When their own children are collected in buckets they have miraculous conversions.
    I have personally seen far too much of what the IRA achieved not to know and agree with you whole heartedly.

  43. Since you have absolutely no idea of whether this has touched on our own lives or not, Tina, I suggest your comment is rubbish.

    If sitting on the fence can be translated, in your terms as condemning terrorists and their slaughter, but not extending the blame to a billion or more human beings, then I am more than happy to sit on the fence.

  44. Bravo – What makes me think about any “terrorist” organisation is that the leaders are never, ever, willing to make the ultimate sacrifoce themselves. Better in their view that some anonymous foot soldier goes to his/her death in pursuance of “the cause”.

    OZ

  45. We have a terror veteran on Myt. In Turkey more than 30,000 died because of terror. Almost everyone in one way or another, directly or indirectly is/was effected by terror, as every men serves in Military.

    We very well know what terrorism is. We are sitting in the “garden” itself, not lecturing sitting in warm house millions of miles away.

    How smug can you get?

  46. Oz: I think that is true of “regular armies ” as well, isn’t it? It makes little sense to sacrifice generals and leaders. It is always the footsoldiers who take the brunt.

  47. Araminta :

    …condemning terrorists and their slaughter…

    Actually, I can’t read anywhere here where you have condemned terrorism – your comment

    Araminta :

    I think Tocino makes a very valid point, Bravo. Historically, many so called terrorists are now respectable politicians. I’m sure you can think of many examples.

    …seems to be all that you have said on the matter. Have I missed it?

  48. christinaosborne :

    Bravo you will never get through to fence sitters until it touches them directly. When their own children are collected in buckets they have miraculous conversions.
    I have personally seen far too much of what the IRA achieved not to know and agree with you whole heartedly.

    So have I CO. One mate blown to smithereens. Another blinded who later died of a heart attack. A cousin shot who luckily survived and as for myself, twenty feet from the blast centre which blew the other guy through the roof. I could go on!

  49. Perhaps Boadicea I did not make my point clear. My point is that I do condemn terrorists and their slaughter, but draw the line at condemning more than a billion Muslims, as being responsible. Apologies if you thought this unclear.

    No you haven’t missed it, I supported Tocino on this issue but declined to add further to the debate. See my comment #62 for the reason.

  50. I’m shaken by some of the comments that have appeared here on a blog site which bears my name. I dissociate myself from them in the strongest possible terms.

    My condolences for the death of your innocent young colleague, Bravo, and for the other dead and maimed Muscovites.

    The defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism may register my contempt.

  51. But neither did I see any mention of the death of Bravo’s colleague, Bearsy.

    My condolences also, Bravo. I can understand your anger.

  52. Bearsy,

    I really don’t think there were any “defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism” I understood that like everything, this was a debate. I assumed that everyone had sympathised with B2cc and the situation? I’m sure that B2cc said that there was one casualty from his place of work and not a fatality? We are all singing from the same hymn sheet here.

  53. There are a number of comments on this post which did not seem to take into account the fact that Bravo had had a narrow escape, and at the time of writing the original post was unclear about the fate of one of his colleagues. Shortly afterwards he found that she had been killed.

    There seems, to me, to be a lack of sensitivity from those who ploughed in with a ‘rational discussion’ before making it absolutely clear, in words of one syllable, that they condemned this act.

  54. We’ve had one casualty from the Company. Young secretary, 21 years old…

    Yesterday I was talking to a young, blonde, blue-eyed woman. Today she was carried away from the tube train she was taking to work in buckets. Not as a tragic result of a legitimate act of war targetting a legitimate military target, but as a cold-blooded, directly targetted attack.

    Bravo missed being a casualty himself by 30 minutes or so.

  55. I’m actually pretty appalled by the misunderstandings on this thread too.

    My original comment should stand but I would prefer that the author or an administrator would kindly delete my subsequent comments. I regret my involvement in this post.

  56. Your post, Bravo but I can see no point in further discussion in view of your response.

    Tina, I suggest your comment is rubbish.

    You call that debate?

  57. I’m shaken by some of the comments that have appeared here on a blog site which bears my name. I dissociate myself from them in the strongest possible terms.

    Please substitute of  “which I am a member” in the above and kindly delete my comments hereon as requested. Thanks.

  58. Thank you Boadicea for your 9.28pm comment, the first level headed response to this blog.
    I am glad you didn’t get hurt Bravo and am sorry to hear about your co worker, this must make this tragedy personal and move it even closer to home, so I don’t condemn your bitterness.
    But the response to the blog is a bit off the rails to say the least. Not about the cowardly attack and loss of innocent lives, nor about the fact that suicide bombings seem to be the Muslims freedom fighters favourite mode of attack, or the point that taking a war directly to the people instead of attacking the state is pathetic. What bugs me is that nobody has mentioned that, yes this was carried out by Muslims, but in the first degree it was a Chechnyan attack on a government that they perceive as their enemy.
    Don’t get me wrong, suicide bombings of innocent population are indeed the worst type of making a statement and measures should be taken to wipe out the perpetrators, but again to throw all Muslims into the same pot, as it was done in some comments above, strikes me as wrong.

  59. Araminta –

    1. Why on earth should I change my comment?
    Like it or not, this website does bear my name (thanks to an unfortunate lack of foresight), and it shows up that way in Google and other search engines. I wished to make it crystal clear that I, Bearsy do NOT support those who claim or imply on this site that –

    suicide bombers actions in covertly murdering innocent unsuspecting civilians are no different to any act of declared war,

    the perpetrators are 'brave',

    they should be respected as freedom fighters,

    their leaders should not be pursued with extreme prejudice,

    their funding sources should not be questioned.

    I stress that DNMT members are, of course, entitled to express their personal opinions within Site Policy and I will defend their right to do so irrespective of however much I disagree with them, but I have an equal right to express my personal opinions when I choose to do so, as here.

    2. Moderation of this post is a matter for Bravo. I would not presume to pre-empt his authority, leaving holes in his post before he’s seen the original content.

  60. I have just woken up.

    Araminta, I’m not going to delete any comments. You said what you said, let it stand.

    Rainer. Thanks for your comment. There are a number of groups fighting for independance in Chechnya. Not all of them are terrorist. The guy who sent these two out, it would seem, though there is as yet no confirmation, is called Doku Umarov. A suitable case for treatment. He is the leader of a terrorist group demanding an islamic caliphate across the N. Caucasus, not just in Chechenya.

    My post and comments condemn all terrorists, of whatever stripe. I made clear in answer to Sipu how I feel about attacks on soldiers – and remember, I was one, like a couple of others here.

  61. Grrr I have stayed out of this until now because of the extremely raw emotion Bravo will be feeling. But FFS I cannot stand by and allow this witch hunt to proceed any further.

    Bearsy,

    Talk about the wrong end of the stick! You grasped something mate but it wasn’t even the same stick!

    I cannot find one example in this thread of anyone applauding terrorism, I can see a lot of knee jerk, misunderstanding and folk telling otheres what they said.

    I understand Minty MBEs point because my initial reaction was the same when I read it, and I quote from the last para of the post “Ask yourself this, where does the money come from to finance these groups – but better yet, don’t ask me, ask TTM and Levent.”

    If it had not been for the experience of the anger caused when this cowardly, evil shit “touches you directly” as Mrs Osbourne so gently puts it. I would have picked up on Bravos suggestion that once again every muslim man, woman and child is responsible for dead Russians. I wondered why a young man born and bred in Leeds and a thoroughly peaceful Turk could be connected with the terrorist tactics of a Chechen warlord.

    Out of empathy for Bravo, and respect for a fellow serviceman I let it ride for a while. Sorry but I cannot do so any longer.

    Terrorists are scum, end of. Mandella was a terrorist and should have rotted in that cell, I have always said it. The end NEVER justifies the means. That is why I had such a struggle agreeing over the IRA’esque Ana blog on the darkside a week or so back. Adams, Paisley, Tom Cobbley and all. Releasing convicted bombers from captivity early or otherwise is a square kick in the knackers for every serviceman/woman and an insult to the family and friends of the victims.

    I have no doubt, the Ruskies will respond with swift and dire retribution and I don’t care. There will be wishy washies who will try and defend the rights of Chechen civilians who want their freedom. They could start by offering up the location and name of the attrocious bastard who signed the order to blow innocent people to smithereens.

    The way you beat terrorists is make sure that everyone is scared shitless of hiding the evil scum.

    Mrs Osbourne takes this too far of course, it is her MO. Honestly dear sometimes you make Herrod look like a model social worker.

    In short, Bravo I’m am so very glad you decided to go in early yesterday.
    I am desperately sorry to hear about all the dead commuters including your colleague.
    I say, find the feckers and make sure everyone sees what should happen to evil terrorist scum, public and painful as you like, then add a bit on.
    But please don’t lay this at the prayer mat of every muslim on the planet.
    Reconsider Aramintas request about her comments and see through the anger at what she tried to say.

    Bearsy,
    Look again at what you thought you read, it just isn’t so.
    I think you owe a lot of folk an apology.
    If you still don’t see what I am on about, ask Boa she saw it straight away.

    Araminta,
    I saw it too, but in fairness you might have been a little more considerate of Bravos state of mind before laying in on the muslim jibe. Even Levent thought of Bravo first then his faith.

    Now I shall crawl into my bunker, don my small tin hat and await the innevitable incoming.

  62. My apologies Brendano, and I know it’s not addressed to me, but I don’t understand your comment. Could you clarify what is irrelevant in Bravo’s comment and in what way he’s been good? 😕

  63. Bravo Old Bean,

    Can you please be a little more careful if you exercise your right to censor comments on your post.

    I and it seems, Bearsy thought the words were Brendanos. That way lies madness chum.

  64. Ferret, no incoming from this quarter – even though friendly fire is, inevitably, the most accurate.

    ‘“Ask yourself this, where does the money come from to finance these groups – but better yet, don’t ask me, ask TTM and Levent.”’

    To qualify; this comment. It was not aimed at muslims in general and I apologise unreservedly to everyone if that’s how it read.

    The money I was referring to comes from Saudi Arabia. Wahabi islam has infested the Balkans, and now the Caucasus, and is funneling money into the building of new mosques . ‘New mosques’ and, also, of course, buying influence, spreading the hardline wahabist message and financing selected extremist groups. I wrote a comment once and finished it woth ‘Saudia esse delenda,’ with which TTM, as was, agreed, hence the somewhat eliptical reference.

    I hope that I have made it quite clear in my comments above that I condemn all terrorists, whatever their supposed cause, hence the lack of incoming from this direction after your comment above.

  65. Bravo,

    Furry Nuff friend.

    If someone is using religion as a cover for a power grab then it is and evil thing indeed. But I refuse to condemn an entire faith for the actions of a tiny number of evil scum who hide within it.

    I do have a problem with those who blanket all muslims with the label because in doing so, our meeja are famous for it, they provide the nutters with even more places to hide.

  66. Bravo
    Good Morning and glad to note you are well. Like everyone else when the news came yesterday your safety was foremost in my mind. Been away from blogs for a while and I have not quite read all the comments here but there is no heroism in terrorism of any shape or form. It is brutal, it seeks to maim and murder and nothing on earth can ever justify it. Never, ever. Yesterday was another dark day. And yes, Boadicea, most terrorism in the world is perpetrated by Muslims today. A tremendous tragedy for Muslims in general and an affront to the faith.

  67. Ferret
    Obviously senility has caught up with me. Could you please explain to whom I should apologise, and why?

    Boadicea and I were in perfect accord when we wrote our separate comments this morning – and we still are.

    I can, if you feel it necessary, give specific reference to the remarks to which I refer, but I would have thought that my #95 was clear enough.

    Or have you possibly read into my words something that is not there? I rather fear that you must have done.


    Brendano – I still fail to understand what you are on about; your second comment merely reproduces the first, but in less detail. I am well aware that Bravo is the author of this post, but I have absolutely no idea why you consider his comments irrelevant or why you suggest that he should start another post.

  68. Bearsy, Brendano is correct, i caused the confusion. I should have just removed the offending comments instead of trying to be a smartass. My apologies for the confusion.

    Pre-emptive strike. If you wnat to comment on ‘offending,’ Brendano, do it on your own blog, not this one.

  69. Bearsy,

    Please don’t take offence, I did not suggest you were senile, just mistaken and perhaps may have been a bit strong against Araminta and Tocino for a start.

    Here goes…

    In adressing Araminta in your #95, it appears you acusing her of each of the heinous crimes you list. In truth she is innocent on all counts.

    Just about everyone of the despicable sentiments in your list can be attributed to those comments made by Sipu, yet you choose to make your “not in my name” disclaimer plural “The defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism may register my contempt.” Nobody else on this thread but Sipu has done anything of the sort.

    In all fact many terrorists have been given positions of authority on the world stage. It is an undeniable truth and one which grips my exhaust royally.

    Now, I owe you an apology, I read more anti islam sentiment into your response than existed, for that I am sorry.

    But I do feel that you have done both Araminta and Tocino an injustice by indirectly calling them “defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism”.

  70. My God! What a mishmash of misunderstandings, imo; rather hard to unravel on such a long thread and I have neither the time nor the inclination to comment in detail. I’m with Ferret’s last paragraph:

    “But I do feel that you have done both Araminta and Tocino an injustice by indirectly calling them “defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism”.

    Naturally, I am appalled by yesterday’s horrific slaughter of innocent people and feel great sadness for their families and friends. I am relieved you are safe, Bravo, and am so sorry about your colleague.

  71. Ferret

    No, you did not suggest I was senile – I did. But I don’t imagine things which are not there.

    I made absolutely no mention of Islam, nor did I express any anti-Muslim sentiments in any of my comments. If you read what was written, you will see the truth of this. Trouble is, you “read in” to it something that was not there.

    My original comment was deliberately NOT addressed to anyone. Araminta may have “read in” to my comment that I was addressing her. I wasn’t. My comment was (almost) entirely the result of the comments made by Sipu, which I still regard as contemptible, although I was also a little upset by the apparent callous disregard being shown of Bravo’s narrow escape and the death of his colleague.

    I said ‘deliberately not addressed’ – it was my intention that “if the cap fits, wear it” should apply. Note again that I did NOT address my remark to Tocino or Araminta. Why should they or you make the assumption that they were the target?

    My #95 was addressed to Araminta since she had instructed me in her #93 to change my comment, and there was no way I was going to resile from it. I therefore explained my position in more detail. Why should you or she assume that I was making those accusations against her? It may “appear” to you to be so, but you’re wrong. Totally wrong. You “read in” to it what you wanted to see. An opportunity to attack Bearsy on specious grounds.

    Now, I say again, I made no comment about Islam or about Muslims or about blaming them all for the actions of a few. It is most unpleasant that you should have inferred that this was my intention and I reject utterly your continuing assumption that I had this in mind.

    You STILL say “more anti islam sentiment … than existed” – there was absolutely bloody NONE. I did not address Islam.

    I have no intention of apologising for something that I have not done.

    I am pretty pissed off that you didn’t applaud me for dissociating myself and this site from the defenders, appeasers and apologists for terrorism.

  72. Bearsy,

    Thank you. Now please, allow me to retort.

    1. “I made absolutely no mention of Islam, nor did I express any anti-Muslim sentiments in any of my comments. If you read what was written, you will see the truth of this. Trouble is, you “read in” to it something that was not there.”

    I know! Thats why I said I was sorry on that count. 🙂 I was misled by your endorsement of Rainers comment “nor about the fact that suicide bombings seem to be the Muslims freedom fighters favourite mode of attack” he used a double negative swap-a-roo which I misread. So PLEASE accept my abject apology. There was NO anti-islam content in your comment.

    2. The comment #95 with the list as a sub-para begins:

    “Araminta –

    1. Why on earth should I change my comment?
    Like it or not, this website does bear my name (thanks to an unfortunate lack of foresight), and it shows up that way in Google and other search engines. I wished to make it crystal clear that I, Bearsy do NOT support those who claim or imply on this site that -…..”

    When a comment begins with a bloggers name, is it not fair to assume that the comment is adressed to that blogger?

    3. Minty MBE was not asking you to change your comment. She was agreeing completely with your sentiment. A re-word might be “You can say that again. But with “am a member of” in place of “bears(unintended pun alert) my name”. She then goes on to explain fully how shocked and upset she is that her comments may have been interpreted in such a manner and reasonably asked that they be deleted. Both you gentleman graciously denied her request.

    Finally,

    I am not attacking you or anyone, just saying what I read and why I read it that way. Their were only three bloggers on the thread whose comments were not entirely in the “glad to hear you are OK and sorry about the colleague” vein. By using your plural defenders comment I am pointing out that it may be taken that you were commenting on more than one blogger.

    That was a very harsh assessment you made Bearsy, I might suggest that when doing so you be very direct as to whom you refer. Allowing “cap fits” kind of scatter tactics on something like that is beneath you.

  73. Thank you again, Furry.

    Bearsy: I have clarified my position on this issue in my own post, which I felt was more appropriate. I would at least appreciate your reading it and acknowledging my point of view. Thank you.

  74. Minty MBE,

    Don’t mention it. This is why I was trying to stay out of the whole thing in the first place.

    Good job I still have my tin hat without the earholes. 🙂

  75. For Christ’s sake Ferret, I was trying to be tactful.

    If I get any more bloody attacks from you Ferret or from Araminta, FOR THINGS WHICH I AM NOT GUILTY OF, FOR THINGS WHICH I DID NOT DO, I shall delete DNMT immediately. Take my bat and ball and sod off. Very childish but I’ve had more than enough of both of you.

    Fair attacks are OK, but this is bloody disgusting and completely unfair. You recognise that you got it wrong, but you’re still telling me off. Back off. Better – APOLOGISE!

  76. Thank you both.
    I’m off to do the washing up, and then bed. Catch you later.

    Levent – do you feel let down? I’m sure we can arrange for someone to have a go at you! 😆

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s