Subscribe via RSS Feed

Turn Grozny to Rubble!

[ 294 ] April 19, 2013 |

Questions:

  1. Are Chechens white? Asking for a friend.
  2. Will the United States ever cease its strong support for Russian imperialism in the Caucasus?
Share with Sociable

Comments (294)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Literalreddy says:

    If they are Muslim, then the answer is no, because as we all know there are no white Muslims.

  2. N__B says:

    Assuming that (1) these are the marathon bombers, (2) they are Chechen, and (3) their purpose was something like revenge against the U.S. for sitting around fat and happy* while Chechnya was pounded into rubble, I still don’t get it. This isn’t going to make a single person in the US who didn’t already care about Chechnya care about it. This is going to make a lot of idiot-Americans** hate Muslims more. This is possibly an excuse for yet another Russian pounding of Chechnya.

    *Or at least one out of two.

    **I know, I know.

    • Shakezula says:

      I have to say I can’t recall a terrorist action to which my response (or anyone’s) was “Gosh, now that you’ve killed a bunch of people, I really care about the particular cause that resulted in you killing a bunch of people.”

      But then I have a weird theory that terrorist attacks come from the same mental set up that gives you sociopaths such as serial killers. (And in the case of the Beltway Snipers, there can be overlap.) They just want to kill people and Cause X is the justification for doing so.

      • N__B says:

        I’ve never developed sympathy for mass killers (or wanna-be mass killers), but I usually understand their grievances and sometimes understand their logic. This one escapes me.

        • Dilan Esper says:

          It’s not sympathy so much. When terrorism works, it’s because there is a lot of it and it forces a negotiation.

          The British, for instance, didn’t sympathize with Irish nationalism, but they did want the violence to end.

      • N__B says:

        But yeah, sociopathy explains a lot.

      • Jeremy says:

        Weren’t the Madrid bombings responsible for Spain getting out of the Iraq War?

        • rea says:

          It was a lot more complicated than that–you could look it up.

          • Shakezula says:

            I have to say I don’t recall it happening as “We’re out of here because some fucks blew shit up.”

            For one thing, our domestic chicken hawks would have had a conniption fit that made their anti-France antics look cute.

            • rea says:

              It was more like: (1) whether joining the Iraq War made any sense was already an issue between the conservative government and the socialists, (2) the cnservative government mishandled the bombing (trying to blame the Basques, for example), causing them to lose the election, and (3) the new government, as it planned before the bombing to do if elected, got out of Iraq.

        • Ethan says:

          Not particularly, no. The Madrid bombings didn’t change the PSOE’s stance on Iraq, they were already against it. It’s certainly POSSIBLE that a party that had been in power for eight years couldn’t have lost the election to the largest opposition party, which had formed the government for 14 years before the present government was elected without the terrorist attack. It’s POSSIBLE that even though the only reason they elected the PSOE was because of the attack in order to leave Iraq, the Spanish re-elected the PSOE four years later, with no prospect of returning to Iraq, with another few dozen seats. It’s also POSSIBLE that a swing against the government, if it had anything to do with the attack, was entirely based on blaming the war in Iraq for the attack, and not on blaming the government for failing to prevent it, or on the government’s ham-handed attempt to pin it on Basque separatists. But the case as really never been particularly strong, and on the level of political leaders, as opposed to voters, not leaving Iraq would have been precisely changing policy in response to a terrorist attack.

        • The Irish says:

          The Socialist party winning an election was responsible for Spain getting out of the Iraq war. They won the election in part because the incumbents fucked up the handling of the Madrid bombings.

        • wengler says:

          Their government lied to them and tried to blame Basque nationalists.

        • Pseudonym says:

          Yes, I believe they took their armada and went home, but I think that the bombing was only one contributing factor.

    • ploeg says:

      If they wanted to get the Americans who sat around fat and happy, they shouldn’t have targeted a marathon, is all I’m sayin’.

    • Karate Bearfighter says:

      Even if they are part of an organized group, you can’t assume the message is aimed primarily at Americans. Successfully conducting a terrorist attack can be a recruiting tool, a domestic political power play, a morale boost for supporters, or a little bit of everything.

    • Chatham says:

      Even if the reports that they are Chechnyan are correct, I don’t think we can assume that they did this on behalf of Chechnya, just like if they turned out to be from Tennessee we couldn’t assume that the motive was a pro-Tennessee one. There are plenty of possibilities. They could have been hired to do this. They could have started to view the Chechnyan war as part of a larger Christian against Muslim war, joined one of the militant groups with a similar view, and got sent to the US on a mission. They could be the equivalent of the school shooters, just pissed off at society and trying to strike out against it.

      It could be a mix of all three, or none. But I don’t think we have a whole lot of evidence right now to show that this 19 and 20 year old, if they are indeed Chechnyan and if they are indeed responsible for the bombs, acted in order to further some geopolitical goal.

    • Barry says:

      This does give Russia carte blanche for just going in an making the Next Chechyn War pretty much a war of extermination.

  3. RPF says:

    They are certainly Caucasian…

  4. Airborne Simian says:

    1.Yes (So are Iranians. Not sure why people refer to all Muslims as “brown people” so much)
    2. I assume that’s tongue-in-ccheek.

    • Matt Stevens says:

      1.Yes (So are Iranians. Not sure why people refer to all Muslims as “brown people” so much)

      I believe, according to the US Census, that Iranians are “white” because they’re of “Middle Eastern descent.” Cross the border into Pakistan and the folks you see will be “Asian.” No, I didn’t say it made sense.

      • Airborne Simian says:

        “Hindu” used to be its own racial category on the Census, believe it or not, and it included anyone from the Subcontinent inlcuding….Muslims.

        But Iranians really are caucasians. Give the Ayatollah a clean shave and a western suit and most Americans on the street would peg him as Greek or Sicilian.

        • DrDick says:

          Indians and Pakistanis are also Caucasians, though not in US law.

          • medrawt says:

            So are Arabs and North Africans, if you get down to it. This notion of Middle Eastern “brownness” doesn’t have anything to do with consistently distinguishable (hope I’m using this word correctly) phenotype.

            • Jeffrey Beaumont says:

              Arabs are semitic, not into-european (caucasian). North Africans are many different things.

              • divadab says:

                Chechens are Caucasian, but not Indo-European. The Chechen language is non-indo-european, but rather part of the ancient Caucasian language group. It’s hypothesised that it is related to the Hurrian and Uarartian, languages of the ancient fertile crescent and points north.

              • DrDick says:

                Semites are also Caucasian, as are all the Middle Eastern and South Asian peoples.

              • medrawt says:

                Indo-European is a linguistic classification. Groups relevant to this discussion that don’t speak Indo-European languages, aside from those who speak Semitic languages: Basques, speakers of Uralic languages (Finns, Sami, Hungarians), Turks.

                With the possible exception of the Turks, it would take a truly iconoclastic racist of the modern era to argue that Finns and Basques aren’t, for the purposes of crude racial distinctions in the 21st century USA, white or Caucasian. (And the ancestors of the people living in Turkey spoke an Indo-European language prior to their conquest by the Turkish speaking folks, who got their start on the Eurasian steppe – Uighur, e.g., is also a Turkish language.)

                There’s no good reason to introduce language as an additional tool in attempting these large-scale ascientific classifications (after all, how many of the world’s black people are native speakers of an Indo-European language?) – the study of this stuff is the study of cultural attitudes. A hundred years ago the cultural attitude was that my ancestors (Portuguese and Spanish) weren’t white in quite the same way as British and Germans. Fifty years ago the idea that Arabs were white was uncontroversial in an educated “scientific” context. Today they’re Other.

                • John says:

                  People of Lebanese or Syrian Christian descent in the United States are certainly still considered white.

                • Jay C says:

                  Actually, believe it or not, Finns were considered as “non-whites” in US racist racial classifications for a long time, based on their supposed “Mongolian” ancestry. It wasn’t until, I think, 1903 or so that a judge ruled that their “Mongol” blood had become so diluted over time that Finns could indeed, be classed a “white folks”.

                • medrawt says:

                  Jay C – in defense of my knowledge of historical pseudoscience on the subject of human ethnicity, I was trying to hedge that by saying “iconoclastic … modern era” rather than going into a digression about the Finns, who at least have been speaking Finnish for most of recorded history, except for the part where lots of them speak Swedish. I wanted to save my digressions for the Turks, since they’re a more potent problem for the “linguistic identity indicates an ongoing genetic allegiance” prong of the “white = Indo-European” notion. And I bet a lot of contemporary Americans would consider the Turks something other than white, just because. Whereas the idea that Finnish people aren’t white would be absurd to anyone who didn’t already know the history you mention. (Or who watched that one episode of Community where it was mentioned.)

              • John says:

                What does being Indo-European have to do with being white or “Caucasian”? Basques, Finns, and Magyars are certainly white, but do not speak Indo-European languages.

            • Karen says:

              This is a subject that deserves more attention. The suspects have brown hair and brown eyes, making them look like just about anyone who isn’t East Asian or subsaharan African. This is why racial profiling always seemed stupid to me. Arabs, Hispanics, anyone from around the Mediterrean, all look remarkably similar, and similar to anyone from northern India, Pakistan, and large parts of northern Europe. It isn’t a useful description without information beyond physical appearance.

              • Karate Bearfighter says:

                This is an excellent point.

                • Karate Bearfighter says:

                  Just to clarify, you presumably mean “physical characteristics associated with those ethnic groups are remarkably similar”, and not anything else.

                • Karen says:

                  Exactly. Having brown hair, brown eyes, and an olive complexion, characteristics which are shared by the Iranian ayatollahs, Nicholas Maduro, Carlos Slim, the presidents of Spain and France, and about a billion other people.

              • Shakezula says:

                And then you get into the fact that in the U.S. the designation “African-American” usually tells you the person isn’t blond/blue eyed, but beyond that good luck.

              • mds says:

                Arabs, Hispanics, anyone from around the Mediterrean, all look remarkably similar, and similar to anyone from northern India, Pakistan, and large parts of northern Europe.

                So … what you’re saying is, we’re completely hemmed in by terrorists.

                • Hogan says:

                  Lt. Tirebiter: What about the gooks?

                  Cpl. Pico: Bad news, Lieutenant. There are gooks all around here.

                  Cpl. Alvarado: They live here, Lieutenant — they got women and pigs and guns and everything.

                  Cpl. Pico: I was talkin’ to this one little gook…

                  Lt. Tirebiter: That’s swell, Corporal, but we’ve got orders to surround these little gooks!

                  Cpl. Alvarado: That’ll be easy, Lieutenant, there’s millions of ‘em on all three sides of us.

                  Lt. Tirebiter: Hah! That means we got those little gooks right where we want ‘em, right?

          • timb says:

            not all Indians. People from the South of India are very dark, owing to a Dravidian or Tamil ancestory

            • DrDick says:

              Tamils are Dravidians (which is a linguistic classification) and are generally classed as Caucasian. Some tribal populations are sometimes classed with Melanesians and Australian Aborigines.

      • Shakezula says:

        See also people from the northern end of the African continent.

  5. William Burns says:

    Turn Grozny to rubble? Hasn’t that already been done?

  6. c u n d gulag says:

    CHECHENS?!?! – thinks I!!!!

    If you asked me, out of all of the f*cking countries that we’ve f*cked with over the f*cking decades, I’d have put f*cking Chechnya right around dead @!$%#ing last – after all, they’re Russia’s favorite whipping-boy.

    And vice-versa.

    I’d have put New Zealanders ahead of Chechnians.

    What, Moscow doesn’t have any @!$%#ing marathons?
    (Btw – I was chaperoning a college trip to Moscow, back in Jaunuary of ’95, when Chechen rebels were threatening to set off nuclear irradiating devices in parks around the city – fun times —NOT!!!)

    What’s their beef with us, the US?
    Couldn’t get dates for some prom?

    I can “get” terrorists from the Middle East coming here and killing people – even foreigners running a marathon.

    But people from the former USSR’s, or, now Russia’s, sphere of influence?

    WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    FTW?!?!?!?!?!

    TFW?!?!?!?

    Etc…

    Cue the flying-monkey’s!

    There goes immigration reform!

    Our Conservatives will blame any and everyJaun!

    • JL says:

      What’s their beef with us, the US?
      Couldn’t get dates for some prom?

      Possibly. The younger of the two, at least, went to Cambridge, MA’s public high school and was class of ’11 there, according to USA Today. The older one complained about having no friends in the US.

      These weren’t guys who came over from Chechenya in order to commit the bombing, though it sounds like they talked about Chechen stuff on social media. They were legal permanent residents who’d been living in the US for years. If the reports that they immigrated in 2002 or 2003 are accurate, the younger one has lived most of his life in the US.

      • Shakezula says:

        So this could be Columbine: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        Well, in the last 3 or so decades, I’ve become pretty disappointed in this, the country of my birth.

        And I heard they’ve LOCKED-DOWN the entire city of f*cking BOSTON?
        WTF?!?!?!?!
        BOSTON!
        BOSTON, AND SORROUNDING TOWNS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

        FOR ONE F*CKING GUY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

        Hopefully, they’ll catch the surviving brother, alive.

        But, I doubt it.
        Everybody in authority is better off with him dead.

        They’ll say, ‘Well, it’s one thing to approach an armed suspect. It’s another kettle of Islamic terrorist fish when you have to approach an armed suspect, who might have a bomb strapped to him.”

        This guy’s a goner.

        I’m more nervous about this lock-down, than I am about anything else in this story!

        I think we’ve gone completely overboard in our over-reaction.

        WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY OVERBOARD!!!

        Welcome to the “New” America:
        Where the only thing that will match the level of fear, is the number of camera’s.

        • Mondfledermaus says:

          They locked Boston to keep the population safe from the cops!!.

          Just lika in LA a few months ago, when the cops went apeshit and started ‘confusing’ just about anyone with the suspect.

        • Charlie says:

          Um yes, thanks for saying this. I am from Boston and have a lot of friends freaking out and tragedy-whoring on Facebook.

          Look, I’m sure it’s scary if you’re there. But they are shutting down the whole city to find one 19-year-old who is probably out of bullets?

          It all feels like a huge case of CYA on the part of law enforcement who let him get away, so they’re holding the city hostage.

        • Rhino says:

          Cundgulag, did a nine year old appropriate your pseudonym this morning?

          Your posts are not normally quite so exuberantly and hysterically punctuated.

      • Brandon says:

        A classmate, teammate and friend called into NPR a bit ago. He considered him a close friend and has known him for years.

        It was the nephew of Robin Young, host of NPR’s “Here and Now,” and she’s on the air right now and also knew him a little bit.

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        In fact, the younger of the two is a second-year student at the Dartmouth, MA, campus of the University of Massachusetts (according to sources including the New Bedford Standard-Times, in a story which is eminently well-sourced). Being as that’s about 15 miles from here, I now am beginning to feel personally involved, however irrational that may be.

        Yeah, Columbine++ is what it is looking like from here.

  7. Johan Friedrich Blumenbach says:

    Are Chechens white? Asking for a friend.

    Jawohl.

    • DrDick says:

      Definitely, under every “scientific” racial classification in the last two centuries, though nobody uses those classifications any more since there are no biological races.

      • Matt Stevens says:

        Sure there are! There are San bushmen in one race, and everyone else in the other.

        • DrDick says:

          Nope. The consensus among geneticists and physical anthropologists is that human beings simply do not have races, as there is too little genetic diversity in the species and there is more variation within populations than between them.

          • Matt Stevens says:

            a) You missed the irony by a wide mark
            b) To the extent that we can trace these things, the first discernible split within the human race occurred between those who settled southern Africa — ancestors of the San — and everyone else.
            c) The whole point was to satirize racial classifications, but again, it went over your head completely

            • DrDick says:

              I am aware of that distinction, but the problem is that there are people in this thread who do not understand that and it can be difficult to catch irony in text from people you do not know well.

          • Vance Maverick says:

            On the one hand, I get that. On the other, what fraction of Americans don’t “know”, for example, whether they are black? The social phenomenon is mutable, chimeric, fuzzy, inconsistent, invidious, etc., etc., but extremely strong.

            (The hash of categories upthread shows in a way how strong — people are using everything they pick up to scratch the same classificatory itch.)

  8. Kurzleg says:

    I’m starting to get the feeling they didn’t wait for the goddamn signal.

  9. Karen says:

    There was a movie on SYFY a couple of years ago about a giant snake under a prison in Antarctica where one of the bad guys was Chechen. It wasn’t very good.

  10. Major Kong says:

    Since when do we actually attack the country responsible for the attack?

    Who’s next on our hit list? Iran or North Korea?

  11. Slocum says:

    Why is everyone surprised its is Chechens? (Assuming it actually is, of course.) That they’re Chechen doesn’t say anything about their motivation, which might be more-or-less non-political. They could have done it out of nihilistic boredom, or because someone paid them or otherwise put them up to it. Or maybe their reasoning is political but rather convoluted (anyone with experience with people from Eastern Europe and Central Asia should be familiar with some fairly complicated political imaginations).

    Anyway, speculating now about why Chechens (again, assuming, etc.) is pointless.

  12. J. Otto Pohl says:

    The Russians have already pounded Grozny into rubble twice since the end of the Soviet Union. Some estimates are that the Russians managed to kill close to 100,000 Chechens or about 10% of the population during these two wars. Then of course there were the genocidal deportations of 23-29 February (it was a leap year) 1944 in which the NKVD sent almost the whole population to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and close to a third of the population, about 125,000 people died in less than five years due to poor material conditions. I do not think the US can top the Soviets and Russians in this matter, but since Chechnya is legally still part of the Russian Federation doing so would require going to war against Moscow. I don’t see that in the cards.

    Chechens like other Caucasian people are of course White. That is where the term Caucasian to describe White people comes from. But, White groups can be racialized by other White groups and there is a fairly long history of this in Europe. The whole history of anti-semitism in fact falls into this category. Since race is a constructed category it can be constructed along the lines of cultural including religious signifiers. It does not have to be constructed along genetic and biological lines like Francine Hirsch insists. So White groups like Jews and Bosnian Muslims and of course Chechens have been racialized on the basis of ancestral religion and culture. Of course the orthodox academic position in US academia as represented by Hirsch is that there was never any racial politics in the USSR.

    The US does not appear to have any policy with regards to the North Caucasus other than to recognize like every other state continued Russian sovereignty over the region. This position is a tacit support of Russian rule and repression in the region. But, it is not like Palestine where the US is the only thing keeping the occupying regime from going the way of the British and French empires.

  13. bluefoot says:

    Local NPR station is interviewing someone who went to high school with one of the suspects here in Cambridge. So he’s been here in the US (and in Cambridge) for quite a few years. Maybe we’ll invade Cambridge? It is after all, socialist…

  14. Airborne Simian says:

    Their digital footprints reveal both are religious Muslims.

    Muslim terror. again.

    • Major Kong says:

      It must be the PLO.

      Pancake Liberation Organization

    • c u n d gulag says:

      Mooozlumz?

      WTF have we ever done to them?

    • Scott S. says:

      In light of Paul Kevin Curtis, may we start Gitmoizing white people, Mississippians, conspiracy theorists, etc.? I’m suspecting you won’t enjoy getting your testicles wired up to a car battery, will you?

      (No, of course we’re not going to go after Elvis impersonators. They’re God’s most holy children.)

    • rea says:

      And you know, by all reports, their digital footprints do NOT show that they are relgious Muslims.

    • DrDick says:

      Unlike the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US since 1950, which have been committed by white, Christian, rightwing extremists. Indeed, they have committed more than everybody else combined.

      • Airborne Simian says:

        could have something to do with the fact that white Christians are, well, a hell of a lot more numerous than Muslims. per capita, however….

        • Malaclypse says:

          Those are some fast-moving goalposts.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          could have something to do with the fact that white Christians are, well, a hell of a lot more numerous than Muslims.

          And yet, when faced with a bomb attack in the US, your mind immediately goes to a group that you now acknowledge is less likely to be behind it.

          Odd.

        • DrDick says:

          Nope. Not even close. The white conservative Christians are far more likely to commit terrorist acts in this country than everybody else combined by any meaningful metric (i.e., excluding the voices in your head).

          • joe from Lowell says:

            per capita?

            • DrDick says:

              The problem with that metric is what is the comparative population. For domestic terrorists, the metric would be the size of the groups in the US population, where conservative Christians still win. To include either World Trade Center bombing the comparison is conservative Christian American terrorist/Conservative Christians in US versus Muslim terrorists versus the global Muslim population, where the margin is even larger.

              • joe from Lowell says:

                If the denominator is “global Muslim population,” should the numerator be “global Muslim terrorists” or “Muslim terrorists in the U.S.?”

                • DrDick says:

                  Since the metric was “more likely to commit terrorist acts in this country”, it is actually attacks by Muslim terrorists in the US, which are negligible. Even when you add in “plots” (an amorphous and dubious category) the numbers are insignificant.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Since the metric was “more likely to commit terrorist acts in this country”,

                  …the it doesn’t make any sense for the denominator to be “global Muslim population, since Muslims in India and Pakistan can’t carry out anything “in this country.”

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Anyway, for both sets – Muslims in the U.S. and white Americans in the U.S. – we’re talking about vanishingly small percentages that are involved in terrorism.

                • DrDick says:

                  since Muslims in India and Pakistan can’t carry out anything “in this country.

                  Are you being deliberately dense here? The distinction is between domestic Muslim and international Muslim terrorists. 9/11 (and the earlier World Trade Center bombing) was not carried out by American Muslims, but by Saudis and Egyptians here on temporary visas, so yes, Indian and Pakistani Muslims could easily commit terrorist acts here. We thus have two, related metrics, comparing per capita attacks in the US by domestic rightwing conservative Christians and American Muslims on one hand and comparing attacks in the US by domestic rightwing conservative Christians or ALL Muslims. The comparative base for the former is the American Muslim community and for the latter it is the global Muslim. community.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  You lose your temper when you get cornered.

                  It’s a good way to tell when the argument is over.

                • DrDick says:

                  Cornered? What the fuck are you talking about? You just shift the goal posts when you lose, just as you have done here.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Deep breaths.

                  It will be ok.

                  Not interested in talking to you more.

      • John (not McCain) says:

        It makes more sense to be worried, if one wants to be worried, about religious conservatives generally than about any particular flavor of religious conservative.

    • Chatham says:

      Well, angry young men again. Though to be fair, it’s not always angry young men. Sometimes it’s angry middle-aged men.

    • Anonymous says:

      Tweets reveal the borthers smoked a lot of weed.

    • Karen says:

      You do know that most people type with their fingers, and “digits” comes from the Latin word for fingers, so it would be more accurate to say they left digital fingerprints. Leaving digital footprints is really awkward, so if they had to type with their feet they likely couldn’t make bombs.

      I know that paragraph makes very little sense, but neither did your comment.

  15. witless chum says:

    1. Nope, assuming they’re Muslims.
    2. Seems likely they’re either Al Qaeda types of Ryan Lanza types, so targeting the U.S. would make “sense” in either case.

  16. Decrease Mather says:

    Listening to a local radio show for about 2 minutes when in a convenience store(and this was not right wing talk), I heard:

    1. Probably Muslims
    2. “Chechnya sided with the Nazis during WW2, which is all you need to know about these people”
    3. caller complaining about why we let these people in.
    4. The kid is updating his Facebook page, these kids today…why don’t they ever sit down and talk to Mom and Dad?

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      Two is false. This was the official justification given by the Stalin regime to deport the Chechens, but there were never any Chechen military units organized by the Germans. In fact the Germans never occupied Chechnya and there were very few Chechen POWs for the Germans to recruit. Rather there was a massive anti-Soviet insurgency in Chechnya under Hasan Izrailov starting in 1940 when the Soviets were still allied with the Nazis as a result of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939.

      • Woodrowfan says:

        Croatia, Chechnya–to-MAY-toe, to-MAH-to.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        The ever-reliable Wikipedia sez:

        German support

        On August 25, 1942, nine German-trained saboteurs from Abwehr’s Nordkaukasisches Sonderkommando Schamil landed near the village of Berzhki in the area of Galashki, where they recruited 13 local Chechens for their cause. Later in August in September, a total of 40 German agentswere dropped in various locations. All these groups received an active assistance from up to 100 Chechens. Their mission was to seize the Grozny petroleum refinery in order to prevent its destruction by the retreating Soviets, and to hold it until the German First Panzer Army arrived. However, the German offensive stalled after capturing only the ethnic-Russian town of Malgobek in Ingushetia.[5] The Germans made concerted efforts to coordinate with Israilov, but his refusal to cede control of his revolutionary movement to the Germans, and his continued insistence on German recognition of Chechen independence, led many Germans to consider Israilov as unreliable, and his plans unrealistic. Although the Germans were able to undertake covert operations in Chechnya—such as the sabotage of Grozny oil fields—attempts at a German-Chechen alliance floundered.[2]
        That the Chechens actually were allied to the Germans is highly questionable and usually dismissed as false.[10][11][12] They did have contact with the Germans. However, there were profound ideological differences between the Chechens and the Nazis (self-determination versus imperialism), neither trusted the other, and the German courting of the Cossacks angered the Chechens (their traditional enemies with which they still had numerous land disputes and other conflicts). Mairbek Sheripov reportedly gave the Ostministerium a sharp warning that “if the liberation of the Caucasus meant only the exchange of one colonizer for another, the Caucasians would consider this [a theoretical fight pitting Chechens and other Caucasians against Germans] only a new stage in the national liberation war.”[13]

        • J. Otto Pohl says:

          At most 100 collaborators out of a population of almost 400,000 people is pretty small and not a good reason to brutally punish 387,229 (official recorded number of Chechen deportees) people. That means that at least 387,129 of these people were completely innocent of the false charge of collaborating with the Nazis.

      • Decrease Mather says:

        This is the morning show (Kimberly was the one who made the Nazi reference).

        That top story is out of date, isn’t it?

        http://www.rochesterbuzz.com/pages/5448852.php

    • the original spencer says:

      2. “Chechnya sided with the Nazis during WW2, which is all you need to know about these people”

      “And don’t even get me started on those fucking I-talians …”

    • Shakezula says:

      2. “Chechnya sided with the Nazis during WW2, which is all you need to know about these people”

      The only way this could be better is if the caller had a German accent.

  17. Kurzleg says:

    WHDH had an interview with a car mechanic who said that they brought cars there for repair with New York plates. The mechanic described the cars as belonging to their friends. I wonder if there’s concern that they got involved with a larger cell?

  18. kg says:

    I hear this guy was an interior decorator!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Apparently, the First Chechnya War attracted former Mujahedeen fighters, led by Ibn al-Khattab and financed by wealthy citizens of Gulf States. Al-Khattab stayed after the war and pushed a “pan-Islamic Jihadist ideology,” aided by the fact that he could provide food, shelter, and work to a destitute Chechnyan populous (that being said, many Chechyan rejected his views, creating internal turmoil).

    Source (See Sections 18-26)

  20. oldster says:

    The older, Tamerlan, is pictured on a site linked to at Balloonjuice. A lot of his quotes there are standard fundamentalist puritanical religious nut: he is very devout, and he will not take his shirt off around girls, because they will think impure thoughts.

    So it’s your familiar steaming vat of religious extremism, sexual repression, and anti-feminist women-hatred.

    I say we round up Pat Robertson first, then lay siege to Fat Tony Scalia’s compound. He fits the profile, too, and he has caused a lot of American deaths.

    God I hate religious extremists.

  21. ironic irony says:

    Listening to the interview of their uncle, realizing that his nephews did this, is heartbreaking.

    “People who do this do not deserve to be alive on this earth.”

    He admitted that he hasn’t had contact with them in years, but that the youngest was a quiet boy.

  22. Gepap says:

    The fact that someone who looks like a white guy might be a Muslim will shock many of the mouth-breathers…

    That said, the reality that the older brother looks to have done this for Islamist reasons is going to give the wingers all the evidence they need to claim a round of “victimization” by the hands of the insidious evil lefties who wanted to blame this on them, and to some extent it will be deserved, guys. While I also thought it very likely to be domestic terrorism based on the date of the event, the possibility was always there and significant that it could be someone self-identifying as an Islamist. After all, we had the example of the attempted Times Square bombing two years ago to show that local disaffected people could grab on to the Islamist cause.

    So I know that the instinct will be to speak of delicious breakfast foods, but anyone claiming to attempt to form opinions based on reality and not ideology needs to own up to having wanted the perpetrators to fit some stereotypical enemy – in this case, the right-wing loon.

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      i won’t “own up” to that at all. let law enforcement do its work and make an arrest (preferable to the scenario that seems likely) and go from there, is my thinking

    • Walt says:

      Speak for yourself, motherfucker. My attitude the whole time has been “I don’t know who did it.” Feel free to engage in showy hand-wringing, if that’s your thing, though.

      • Uncle Kvetch says:

        My attitude the whole time has been “I don’t know who did it.”

        Same here.

      • DrDick says:

        Exactly. It is also the case that these young men do in fact seem to be ” right-wing loons”, i.e., conservative religious extremists. I fail to understand people’s inability to understand that all religious fundamentalism is a conservative ideology, regardless of the religion.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      While I also thought it very likely to be domestic terrorism based on the date of the event, the possibility was always there and significant that

      it could be someone self-identifying as an Islamist.

      Would it be overly-pedantic to note that this was both domestic terrorism and carried out by someone self-identifying as an Islamist?

      These two came here as kids, grew up in Cambridge, and went to school there. Domestic Islamist terrorism: it’s a thing now.

      • Gepap says:

        Yes, it would be overly pedantic in this case. After all, that attempted Times Square bombing suspect lived in the US, but I didn’t see him being put on lists of domestic terrorists.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          The Times Square bomber moved to the U.S. after college, while these two grew up here. He also traveled to Pakistan – North Waziristan – before the attacks, and trained in explosives there. According to the FBI report, his car-bomb plot was hatched there.

    • oldster says:

      “anyone claiming to attempt to form opinions based on reality and not ideology needs to own up to having wanted the perpetrators to fit some stereotypical enemy”

      That is really, really, stoopid.

      A) In fact, I did not form any opinions, and I did not want the perps to be one thing or another.

      B) Even if I had, in fact, wanted them to be Mitt’s sons Tagg, Thagg, and Dagg, my wanting something does not prove that I let it interfere with my opinion-formation. I want there to be milk in the fridge in the morning: I form my opinion by opening the door and checking.

      So long as I didn’t form my opinion until actual evidence emerged, then what I “wanted” has nothing to do with anything.

      So go off and apologize for your own irrationality, if you want to, but I have done nothing other than basing my opinions on reality.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      I didn’t want the perpetrators to fit some stereotypical enemy. I considered it likely that they were American Patriot-Movement types based on the evidence, but wanting didn’t come into it.

    • Karen says:

      No. If my wants had any ability to influence anything, there would be no bombs. These things wouldn’t happen at all. If I wanted anything about this specific incident beyond hoping no one else died, it would have been that the perps couldn’t be forced into some category useful for wongnuts loons to squawk about. As it is, if these kids are responsible, then I hope the survivor is arrested.

    • BobS says:

      I think there’s a difference between what I wanted and what I expected, considering the symbolic significance this week holds for right wing extremists, i.e. tax day, the Waco anniversary, the OKC anniversary. Plus the fact there was a 26 second silent period and mile 26 of the race was dedicated to the 26 Newtown victims while gun control is resisted by that same domestic right wing.

    • wengler says:

      Jesus Christ, the only thing the bombings ever pointed toward was rank amateurs.

      I will own up and say that I thought it was only one guy and it ended up being two guys.

      The ideology behind it doesn’t prove a fucking thing. This was a domestic terrorist attack by (maybe?) rightwing religious fundamentalists.

  23. Woodrowfan says:

    One of my students in my morning class (on immigration of all things) is Ukrainian. Boy, she had some choice words about Chechens.

  24. ironic irony says:

    Reich wingers on terrorist acts carried out by Muslims:

    “Deport all Muslims in America! They’re terrorists! It’s liberals fault- they are too tolerant,”

    Reich wingers on terrorist acts carried out by fellow reich wingers:

    “Lone wolf! They were acting alone! They don’t represent me! It’s liberals fault- they are intolerant of my intolerance!”

    And on it goes.

  25. Data Tutashkhia says:

    Are Chechens white?

    Well, in Russia they, and all other ‘Caucasians’ (people from the Caucasus), are often called ‘blacks’. Or ‘black-assed’. Doesn’t matter if they are Muslims or Christians (‘you, Georgian black-assed ugly mug…’). A social construct, as they say.

    • Anna in PDX says:

      I hear that “Grozny” is Russian for “Dirty”

      • Data Tutashkhia says:

        No, ‘Grozny’ means something like ‘terrifying’, ‘fearsome’. Like, Ivan the Terrible is ‘Ivan Grozny’ in Russian.

        But these guys were born nad grew up far away from Chechnya, apparently. In Kyrgyzstan. And lived in the US for the last 6-7 years. Weird story; hard to imagine what had happen with them.

        • Anna in PDX says:

          Thanks for the correction. Russian is not one of the languages I know anything about so I am sorry I got it wrong.

          Yeah, I don’t even. The article from Mother Jones linked two posts above this one was actually kind of upsetting. I was wanting them to be caught so we can have some answers but it seems to just bring more questions.

      • Lurker says:

        Actually, it means “stern” or “fearsome”. Ivan the Terrible is, in Russian, Иван Грозный​, just like the city, Грозный.

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        You are thinking of griaznyi which does mean dirty.

  26. Chesternut says:

    You guys are obsessed by so called race — which doesn’t even exist.

    The potent fact about those murderous jackasses is that they’re MUSLIM, and islam, being an evil political supremacist death cult, is not related to race.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      Right, our objections to the reports about “dark-skinned male” show that we’re the real racists.

      Of course they do.

    • Shakezula says:

      I’ll have mine with maple syrup please!

    • DrDick says:

      And the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by white, CHRISTIAN conservatives! Christianity is clearly the ” an evil political supremacist death cult.” Thank you for playing.

    • Data Tutashkhia says:

      islam, being an evil political supremacist death cult

      Well, it’s kinda big for a cult: a quarter of the world population.

      As for ‘evil’: that may be, but apparently not as much a Christianity, at least in some cases:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Rwanda#Rwandan_genocide

      The number of Rwandan Muslims increased after the 1994 genocide due to large numbers of conversions.[8] Many Muslims had sheltered refugees, both Hutu and Tutsi.[citation needed] Some converts state that they converted to Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide.[9] Human-rights groups have documented both incidents in which Christian clerics permitted Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death-squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis.

    • Warren Terra says:

      The amazing thing is that civilization has survived so long, given your assertion that there are a billion members of “an evil political supremacist death cult”, and that millions of them hide among us, hidden by their pretense of being our friends and neighbors.

      The other alternative is that 99.99% or more of Muslims don’t resemble your description – just a Tim McVeigh doesn’t represent all midwestern White Protestants.

    • Pseudonym says:

      The problem Chesternut has isn’t that they’re part of an evil political supremacist death cult, it’s that they’re part of the wrong evil political supremacist death cult.

      • jb says:

        Exactly.

        Chesternut is the kind of “Christian” who thinks that 99 percent of the world is going to hell. He essentially thinks that people who don’t share his exact beliefs are inhuman devils. He thinks the modern world is evil, and that we should go back to the Middle Ages, when women were chattel and “heretics” were burned at the stake. He’s also the kind of fundamentalist who believes that his religion has the right, nay the duty, to dominate the world and force everyone to follow its laws. He might not be capable of blowing up a mosque, or shooting Muslims, but he would have no problem with those that do.

        In short, everything that he accuses Islam of, applies to his version of Christianity.

  27. Chesternut says:

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/boston-bomber.jpg

    See the “worldview” section of the thug’s Facebook page.

  28. Chesternut says:

    Now you guys should understand that islam as nothing to do with race nor skin colour.

    Criticizing islam is not “racist”. Since there are murderous Muslims hellbent to actualize the caliphate of every pigments.

  29. ぐうゅび says:

    LOVE how you have all the gifts wrapped – so pretty! Your swap partner was a lucky gal!!

  30. Thanks for finally talking about > Turn Grozny to Rubble!
    - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money < Loved it!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.