Comment on Moscow Bombing: State Terrorism and the Terrorist Response

 by Diane V. McLoughlin, Mar. 29, 2010
main website:  http://www.mcloughlinpost.com

Re: NYT's 'Moscow Attack a Test for Putin and His Record Against Terror';
Clifford J. Levy, Mar. 29, 2010

Scanning several pages of comments, along with the comments chosen to be highlighted by the editor, I am completely dismayed. Not one writer has taken the time to even quickly consult an encyclopedia to familiarize themselves with the history of Chechnya to ascertain for themselves whether or not the people of Chechnya are, or have ever been oppressed.

And, of course, the answer is that the history of Chechnya is rife with oppression and wars waged against them to gain control of the region, the people and their - what? Three guesses, you know the answer - their natural resources.

These people have SUFFERED and they continue to suffer. In the Second World War the ENTIRE population - I mean it boggles the mind - was forced out of their homes and shipped to Siberia by Stalin. A quarter of the population of Chechnya was destroyed.

Chechnya has always been ethnically distinct and it has always wanted independent autonomy to what? To be left the hell alone. Russia says no.

Why does Russia say no? Why have there been two wars by the giant bear Russia against the nothing-sized Chechnya? Two main reasons: Other regions might get it in their heads that maybe they could gain their independence, too - remember celebrating a little something called Independence Day? What for?

The second reason is that Russia does not want to relinquish control over Chechnya because, according to Wikipedia, Chechnya is a 'major hub in the oil infrastructure of the Federation'.

From all of the major human rights organizations we find that life for Chechnyans under Russian control is abhorrent. It is brutal. It is pitiless.

Now, it is time for Americans to wake up. Particularly after 9/11, Americans somehow decreed to themselves that the tough task of parsing out the causes and the effects of conflict was off the table. Any and all attacks on established powers was thrown under the rubric of 'terrorism' - but not, importantly, including the causes and effects of state terrorism, because that would bring the discussion uncomfortably close to having to examine what we have been doing to others ourselves; thus, leaving yourselves foundering around in the darkness of ignorance, fear, and with absolutely no effective means of making anything more just or right in this messed up world.

Remember the 'w's + 1/h' of reporting?: Who, what, where, when, how and why.

Ask yourselves, when was the last time that you found any major news publication in the entire U.S. including in their journalist reports - answers to the question,'why?'

Comment No. 268            Recommend/thumbs up at NYT

(*A note:  The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of comments following the NYT article regarding yesterday's bombing of the Moscow subway support Russia.  Early reports suggest it was committed by two 'Black Widow' Chechnyan women who blew up themselves and tens of Moscow civilians.  They negate any possible motive, however misguided, the women may have had.  The term 'black widow' to describe such violent actors refers to the suggestion that they are widows whose husbands were killed by the Russians or their proxies.)