Sunday, October 16, 2005

Shootout In Russia

WaPo reported The battle that bloodied the city of Nalchik starting Thursday morning, causing more than 100 deaths, came straight out of the deadly playbook of Chechen rebels whose leaders have sworn to engulf the entire Caucasus region of southern Russia in conflict.

Is this not proof that both groups of Islamoterrorists are aligned with Al Qaeda
But it also sprang from the failures of a corrupt local leadership, whose campaign against Islamic extremism in the Russian republic of Kabardino-Balkaria alienated and often radicalized religious Muslims, according to human rights groups and experts on the region.
Why are human rights groups worried about alienating Islamic extremists. Every country should oppose Islamic extremists
Many of the 103 fighters reported killed or captured Thursday and early Friday in Nalchik were local men, officials said, not natives of nearby Chechnya. While a decade of separatist warfare there remains a galvanizing cause for young Muslim men across the region, they are just as often pushed toward violence by what they witness in their own impoverished neighborhoods, analysts said. "The local bureaucracy, in my view, is the main source of instability," said Maxim Shevchenko, director of the Center for Strategic Research on Modern Religion and Politics, a Moscow-based organization.
I did a Google Search on the name of that "group" and the only reference I found was this Washington Post article. Could it be possible that it is a fake group set up just to justify what the Islamoterrorists did?
"People are completely alienated from the system." Valery Kokov, who was replaced last month as president of Kabardino-Balkaria, attempted for two years to crush all but an officially sanctioned version of Islam.
I believe that both Shia and Sunni interpretations should be permitted but Wahhabi or other interpretations, that preach hatred and violence should not be tolerated.
Scores of young men have been arrested and tortured, according to human rights groups. Often, the beards that they wore as a sign of Muslim piety were forcibly shaved. The authorities closed 18 mosques, and many others across the republic were allowed to open for only 30 minutes on Fridays, the Muslim Sabbath. Uniformed officials opened the mosques and took the names of everyone who attended service, according to accounts from the republic.

CQ blogged The American media seem reluctant to report this story accurately. The forces who attacked Nalchik are Islamist terrorists, nominally aligned with al-Qaeda -- Mohammed Atta wanted an assignment with them when he got the 9/11 operation -- and Nalchik isn't in Chechnya in any case. In fact, two other provinces separate Nalchik from Chechnya. While Chechens often strike elsewhere in the Russian Caucasus, that has to do with their motivation on Islamist grounds rather than a desire to just free one small province in the region from Russian rule.

The British media don't have any problem reporting the true nature of the terrorists in Nalchik. Even the leftist Guardian leads their story with a complete description of the terrorists the Post and other American newspapers call "rebels" ... Islamists have often staged attacks outside of Chechnya. Their two most well-known operations, the theater in Moscow and the downing of two Russian commercial planes, took place in the heart of Russia. The massacre at Beslan took place in North Ossetia, which is two provinces to the west of Chechnya. Again, this shows the nature of the "insurgency" in the Caucasus -- fueled by Islamists, not by nationalism or a drive for independence based on freedom from the undeniable Muscovite autocracy.

Why do the American media continue to miss this crucial aspect of the story? Could it be that they do not want to show Islamism as a specific threat based on its own nihilism instead of a false perception of it as a rational response to American foreign policy? For those Americans who do not access foreign news services for their information, they may be tempted into cheering for a movement that directly relates to the same people who killed 3,000 of our own citizens.


Michelle Malkin blogged Look how far down you have to read those stories before you are told that it is Islamic radical terrorists wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people, not just plain-vanilla "gunmen" and nondescript "militants" run amok.

Jeff blogged Today, there is a strong Wahhabi influence behind the Muslim terrorists.

4 comments:

John Sobieski said...

John it's interesting that you make the Wahabi reference. I use 'weak jihad' and 'strong jihad' that has nothing to do with divisions within Islam. Weak jihad are periods in Islam where violent 'strong jihad' was subdued. Jihad is 'weak.' The latest weak period occurred after WWI (Muslims on wrong side of course), Ataturk ends the last Caliphate. 1918. Then in WWII, wrong side again. But in the 50s with the oil revenue growing, Islam became strong and violent jihad arose. It's only natural, the Qur'an is constantly harassing the Muslims to fight jihad against the unbelievers. That is why you cannot ever trust a Muslim because they will never reject the tenet 'slay the infidels wherever you find them.' How can you be a faithful member of a religion that has a leader, who in his final years and his final revelations (Sura 9), was quite clear - kill all the infidels, take their land and property, it is your booty. It all belongs to Islam. Since Ch 9 abrogates all preceding Suras, it's really the only one that matters.

Islamic extremism is just 'strong jihad' striking, but 'weak jihad' through infiltration of Dar al-Harb, abuse of civil rights protections in the West, being on the dole, demanding unique Muslim accomodations, these are all 'weak jihad' but effective jihad nonethelss.

Is a Muslim who privately cheers on an Islamic terrorist and his act a 'moderate' if he condemns the act using taqiyya? I think not.

Don Singleton said...

John it's interesting that you make the Wahabi reference.

My name is Don, not John

I use 'weak jihad' and 'strong jihad' that has nothing to do with divisions within Islam. Weak jihad are periods in Islam where violent 'strong jihad' was subdued. Jihad is 'weak.' The latest weak period occurred after WWI (Muslims on wrong side of course), Ataturk ends the last Caliphate. 1918. Then in WWII, wrong side again.

Just because the Muslims picked the wrong side in both World Wars does not mean they were weak. Stupid, yes, but not weak. They really did very little in either war.

But in the 50s with the oil revenue growing, Islam became strong and violent jihad arose.

Actually the Saudi King only funded the Wahhabist because they promised not to kill him. That does not sound very strong to me.

It's only natural, the Qur'an is constantly harassing the Muslims to fight jihad against the unbelievers. That is why you cannot ever trust a Muslim because they will never reject the tenet 'slay the infidels wherever you find them.' How can you be a faithful member of a religion that has a leader, who in his final years and his final revelations (Sura 9), was quite clear - kill all the infidels, take their land and property, it is your booty. It all belongs to Islam. Since Ch 9 abrogates all preceding Suras, it's really the only one that matters.

There are some pretty nasty things in our Old Testament: supporting slavery, "eye for an eye", but Jesus (who is recognized in the Koran as a great prophet) brought us a better way.

Islamic extremism is just 'strong jihad' striking, but 'weak jihad' through infiltration of Dar al-Harb, abuse of civil rights protections in the West, being on the dole, demanding unique Muslim accomodations, these are all 'weak jihad' but effective jihad nonethelss.

Is a Muslim who privately cheers on an Islamic terrorist and his act a 'moderate' if he condemns the act using taqiyya? I think not.


In Shi'a Islamic tradition Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.

If he cheers an Islamic terrorist, either publically or privetely, he is not a moderate. A moderate Muslim is one that reads the entire Koran, and not just Sura 9, for example Surat al-Baqara, 136 (Qur'an 2:136) says Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them, and Surat aal-E-Imran, 3 (Qur'an 3:3) says It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) and We are all "People of the Book" (or ahl al Kitâb) Surat Al 'Imran, 64 (Qur'an 3:64) says "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." and Surat al-Ankaboot, 46 (Qur'an 29:46) says And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.

Jeff Kouba said...

Thanks for the link. I poked around a bit on Maxim Shevchenko. Looks like he's done some writing on the Orthodox Church in Russia. Perhaps this Center is something he set up.

Corruption remains a problem in the Caucusus. With a fair amount of poverity, one can understand if some people despair, but nothing but hatred can explain murderous like Beslan, and this attack.

Like the US has been doing since 9/11, these terrorists in the Caucusus must be stamped. It is a sign of Russia's relative weakness that it cannot prevent attacks like this.

Don Singleton said...

I did not think about looking up Maxim Shevchenko, just the new "Center"

Despair is one thing, but as you said, nothing can justify things like this.