Thread: Doku Umarov

I have been reading about this man in the papers today. What a scary character!

It seems they already have PLENTY of Islam in the Caucasus, but he's wanting a full-on Islamic state.

Aren't there plenty of people in Russia who think that the whole Caucasus area is not worth hanging on to? Why is this important to Russia?
It let HUGE lands like Kazakhstan and Ukraine go.... Are there people who think like that, in light of the terrorism? Or is there some good reason why this area must remain part of Russia?

What is known about Doku Umarov's background and his objectives? Supposedly he was not a militatant islamist back in the days of the USSR - what was he doing then and how did he get so radical, why does he hate Russia so much now?

I imagine he must have the best of the best of Russia's special forces and intelligence corps after him.... How can he manage to hide inside the Russian Federation...? Is there lots of wilderness in the Caucasus or is he living under a false name?

Sorry if these are stupid questions that everyone knows the answer to! The Caucasus problems are not well known in Western Europe and I only just read about Umarov for the first time.

Hanna, you still don't understand, do you? Islam is just a tool. A something to get what you want. If you have an area of land with uneducated and belligerent people, in order to rule them you have to think of something to keep them in line. Money fits more civilized areas, but religion works just as well and it's cheaper. They could be of any religion, or atheists - you only have to tell them whom they should blame for all their woes (usually arranged by you). That's what the so called 'radical islamists' really are - all their talks about 'holy wars' is simply a lust for power.

I cannot believe that our special agencies cannot find him. If it were in the better times of Soviet Union they all would have been hunted down and executed (well, of course, Chechen conflict would have been impossible in Soviet era).
It's just the feeling that the current rulers of Russia prefer Caucasus to be a dormant volcano. We have obligations, of course, before Europe, human rights, etc, but those obligations are used selectively - and if somebody higher up really wanted to bring the south to order it could be done within several weeks.

There're some rough figures:


These are the expenditures from the federal budget per 1 citizen of the listed republics.
The average amount per 1 citizen of any other region is about 5 thousand roubles ($180), compared to Chechnya (about $1,500). Should I say that more than half (if not more) of these $1,500 are returned to Moscow in the pockets of those who tells us about 'high levels of corruption' on TV. It's a goldmine. We get oil from underground, then sell it abroad, then we send the money to Chechnya, their government gets some and returns the rest 'in cash'.

I can tell you more. This 'business' is very awkward when you do this in front of your own population. If you could divide the country into several smaller states this will be quite more effective (you won't have to feed the 'unnecessary population' from the central regions). We are ruled by criminals who only want to extort money from oil and gas deposits to enrich themselves.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Hanna, you still don't understand, do you? Islam is just a tool. A something to get what you want. If you have an area of land with uneducated and belligerent people, in order to rule them you have to think of something to keep them in line. Money fits more civilized areas, but religion works just as well and it's cheaper. They could be of any religion, or atheists - you only have to tell them whom they should blame for all their woes (usually arranged by you). That's what the so called 'radical islamists' really are - all their talks about 'holy wars' is simply a lust for power.

Well ok, the point about religion being a better way of manipulating poorly educated people is probably right. It's an interesting point and I have never thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
But if you say that this idea applies in Caucasus, aren't you then writing off the entire educational system of the USSR / Russian Federation? I am guessing that education was not working too well in the 1990s, at least in Chechnya, so I guess that generation might be a bit ignorant. But now the education is functioning again, right? It's not THAT primitive, not like a village in Afghanistan or something like that! There are astronauts born in the Caucasus!

And I don't think most people or leaders 'fake' religion in the interest of manipulating people!!
It's hard to imagine! Or are you just following the line that "religion is opium for the people" and anyone organising it must automatically be bad?
Don't you think they are genuine? I do! Why bother risking your LIFE for something you don't genuinely believe in...? There are much easier ways to make a living..

I mean the leaders of Iran, Umarov and all radical moslems (or radical believers in other faiths). I believe they are genuine about their beliefs! Likewise freedom fighters such as.... Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King; Sure, they got power, but I think they genuinely belived in what they were doing. They probably believe that their 'struggle' is/was righteous. Or do you think I am naive for thinking that....?
That's where I think you are being too cynical.

I have always had a bit of admiration for people who strongly believe in a *something* that is bigger than themselves and their egoistical wants. For example religious people (obviously particularly Christians). But also people who follow some idealistic ideology. It would be quite sad if all such people were just fakes, who exploit ideology and religion for their own selfish ends.
I think that is the exception and not the norm.

Yes, I read a bit about the rebuilding of Chechnya. Very flashy! And they are getting four times more money per citizen than some of the other republics on the chart. It's a bit like Belfast which is back in grace in the UK.... Belfast looks splendid nowadays - new fountains, parks, shopping centres everywhere - up until a few years ago it was a complete dump (I have never been there, but that's what people are saying).

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's not THAT primitive, not like a village in Afghanistan or something like that! There are astronauts born in the Caucasus!

Not the whole, Chechnya, but there are places which are that bad. These astronauts were born and educated in Soviet Union. Nothing good came out of Chechnya since 1991.

And I don't think most people or leaders 'fake' religion in the interest of manipulating people!! It's hard to imagine! Or are you just following the line that "religion is opium for the people" and anyone organising it must automatically be bad?

Yes, you seem to forget that I AM a religious person, but nevertheless, I think that in some cases religion is opium for the people indeed and I most definitely don't believe in motives of any public religious leader. A priest (of any religion) should care for spiritual comfort of his congregation. Period. That's where his functions end. When he starts making political statements he betrays his faith by siding with devil.

Don't you think they are genuine? I do! Why bother risking your LIFE for something you don't genuinely believe in...? There are much easier ways to make a living..

Hanna, but people DO risk their lives for money and power. They do it much more frequently and much more willingly than for justice or beliefs.

I mean the leaders of Iran, Umarov and all radical moslems (or radical believers in other faiths). I believe they are genuine about their beliefs! Likewise freedom fighters such as.... Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King;

Take me to your dealer. Mixing them all together....

Originally Posted by Ramil

Take me to your dealer. Mixing them all together....

Well, at least Hanna did not include some of the feminist leaders and the soccer champions in that list, which is a somewhat good sign. Although, she did miss some of the key figures like Han Solo and Leia Organa... what a shame!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, you seem to forget that I AM a religious person,

No, no - I remember. But I thought you were arguing as if you had forgotten! I know it, because I do the same thing

Originally Posted by Ramil

Take me to your dealer. Mixing them all together....

Not at all! The mix was on purpose. Was too tired to think it through properly, the names popped into my head and I thought, why not those?

Because really, you wouldn't have any problem at all finding 10 million people to sign up on each one of the people I mentioned, as being a freedom fighter.

The trouble is: One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist or criminal! It's a hard balance. For example: Mahatma Gandhi was considered a terrorist by the British for a long time. Likewise David Ben Gurion who founded Israel. Hated by a billion moslems... a terrorist according to Britain for a decade... but a freedom fighter to the Israelis and Jews around the world.

The people I mentioned are considered heroes and freedom fighters in their countries and terrorist by others. Lenin: A hero to millions still, right? But a murderous tyrant according to others. It depends on where you are, your background and what time you live in... who it is politically correct and generally "safe" to call a freedom fighter or a tyrant. Jesus was executed for committing crimes against Roman laws, and agitating people against Rome. The PC view AD 30, was that Jesus was a troublemaker who deserved to die. (and how shocking that sounds now!)

And as we know, the winners always write the history!

Personally I think that anyone who is directly responsible for killing civilians is a gangster!
Certainly that includes Umarov.

But a more Politically Correct list of freedom fighters (according to the Nobel committee - so any complaints or jokes can be directed at them instead of making fun of me!): Aung San Suu kiu, Yassir Arafat. Andrei Sakharov, Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama.
Happy?

Originally Posted by Hanna

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist or criminal! For example: Likewise David Ben Gurion who founded Israel. [...] a terrorist according to Britain for a decade... but a freedom fighter to the Israelis and Jews around the world.

I regret to inform you that I gave you a D for the history of Israel. Where did you found the information that Ben Gurion was ever a terrorist according to Britain? Quote the opposite, he served in the British Army in the WWI and was urging other Jews to serve in the British Army in the WWII. You seemed to confuse between Ben Gurion and another guy Yzhak Shamir who was indeed a former terrorist and became an Israeli PM some 50 years later when he turned into a seasoned politician and was never regarded as hero in Israel for his terrorist acts. For the rest of his life, he was trying to play down his role in those acts. Based on that, it seems to me that you might have heard about the Israeli terrorism against the Britain (which was real), but you have no clue what really happened. Hence you gave a very bad example to support your point.

However, you touched an interesting point and I'm ready to discuss that. You see, it's true that a "freedom fighter" can hate his "occupants" so much so that he would resort to the terrorism. But that would be a different kind of the terrorism. You see, if a person blows himself up in a military base or at least in a police department and kills those in service, I can agree he is a hero for his people and an enemy for the other party. Those in service have listed for it. There's no moral difference between that and the field battle. However, when a person blows himself up in a crowd to kill or wound as many civilians as possible which have little to say in their government's actions, that person is not a hero, not a freedom fighter, but a psycho. That who leads the psychos is not a psycho, however. Neither he is a freedom fighter. He is a cynical being that establishes (and enjoys) his power (and money) over his fellowmen by means of the psychos. So, please-please-please, don't ever call those who blow up the innocent civilians "rebels", "freedom fighters", or anything like that. Thanks in advance.

Oops! I think I mixed up Ben Gurion with someone else!! (but who?)
I don't have time to check up my facts so I guess I have to accept that I am wrong sometimes.

And I hope I didn't sound like supported Umarov or his actions - I CERTAINLY don't.

I just want people to keep their minds open instead of following the flock like some stupid sheep. What's politically correct today can be unacceptable in a decade... or vice versa. I think it's more important that people know what values they as individuals support, than jump on the PC bandwagon.

But I am trying to understand where Umarov is coming from in his reasoning... and what to make of the situation in the Caucasus. It's very complicated!

And when I wrote my comment yesterday, I had just been listening to an audio book by Slavoj Zizek on my way home from work...I was inspired by his views and comments deliberately to challenge.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't have time to check up my facts so I guess I have to accept that I am wrong sometimes.

It's not at all a problem that you are wrong sometimes. Let me tell you a secret - most people are wrong most of the time in the majority of things. The biggest issue is that you seem like not letting your assumptions go whenever you face a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But I am trying to understand where Umarov is coming from in his reasoning...

I strongly suggest you'd give it up. I'm pretty sure Umarov himself is not 100% sure most of the time where he's coming from. And you don't seem to be a professional psychologist.

Originally Posted by Hanna

and what to make of the situation in the Caucasus. It's very complicated!

It is, especially since you have no reliable information to form your opinion. And due to the lack of information, you seem to grant Umarov with the properties and features of the "collective freedom fighter/rebel character". And that, of course, makes you draw irresponsible conclusions. (Off topic: I had a friend who was very popular with women, while not being that handsome. Once he shared with me his secret - he tried not to say anything when you're dating, this way you let the woman grant you with the features that she likes and wants to find in the man. So, he was always saying something vague, short, and indisputable. That worked. )

Umarov is just a crazy terrorist scum. Typical muslim radical zealot. I hope FSB will bring his dirty bearded head on a stake as soon as possible. And I also hope that before they'll cut it off, they would also cut other parts of his piece of sh!t body while he still alive. And then will bury the remains in pig сrap. Dixi.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Umarov is just a crazy terrorist scum. Typical muslim radical zealot. I hope FSB will bring his dirty bearded head on a stake as soon as possible. And I also hope that before they'll cut it off, they would also cut other parts of his piece of sh!t body while he still alive. And then will bury the remains in pig сrap. Dixi.

Well it wouldn't exactly be a big tragedy if Umarov happened to get killed by accident when he was captured. Surely it's only a matter of time until they get him.
But I am against the death penalty on principle.

It is very surprising though, that a country like Russia can't manage locate a well known person inside its own territory. Maybe with a bit more brutality on part of security services, it would be possible... but then, that would start a dangerous precedence. Hope they get him before he tries again.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It is very surprising though, that a country like Russia can't manage locate a well known person inside its own territory. Maybe with a bit more brutality on part of security services, it would be possible... but then, that would start a dangerous precedence. Hope they get him before he tries again.

I strongly doubt that he is in Russia.

Ah ok! Where do you think he might be then?

The biggest issue is that you seem like not letting your assumptions go whenever you face a contradiction.

Well, I choose to express an opinion, instead of just picking holes in what everyone else is saying, without ever letting on what my own views actually are...!

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ah ok! Where do you think he might be then?

My guess he is plying between Pankisi gorge in Georgia and some Middle east resorts.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well, I choose to express an opinion, instead of just picking holes in what everyone else is saying, without ever letting on what my own views actually are...!

Ok, let me tell you a story. Once upon a time in a shiny day the Raccoon, as usual, visited his BFF the Beaver at the river bank just to find the water level in the river went below the lowest mark ever. Both friends stood puzzled by the water. Then the Raccoon spoke first:

- Why had the water disappeared? The ecology of the entire region is in danger! What are we going to drink?
- I know why is that! That is because the frogs drank all the water. I respect the frogs when they jump on their land, but when they go into water they drink it, so eventually they drank it all!
- No, that can't be a reason. The frogs are too small.
- That's just the frogs' propaganda. I know them better because I used to live closer to the river when I was a child. I'm telling you it's the frogs! They are so greedy. When they see water they drink it.
- But both of us drink the water too.
- Why are you protecting them?! Do you want the frogs come to your pond and drink all your water too?!
- No, I didn't say so. But we have other life forms in our pond who drink water and it does not seem logical they would drink it all.
- Remember, I said long ago there is not enough water in the river to allow us to drink and swim in it because of those dry desert creatures. They need water, so we can't drink it as we want.
- I don't agree with that. If they want to drink more water, they should start digging for it in the ground rather than spend their entire time hunting each other.
- I don't want to hear what you say and I don't want to reply to it. The frogs are the most hypocritical of all. They drink the water, they swim in it, they don't care about the desert creatures, and finally they drank the entire river!!
- Come on, I don't see any logic in what you said. Please, think it through first. Look at how much water is flowing every day. Do you think frogs can drink it all? What about the tomorrow water? Where is it coming from? Perhaps, something had happened to the river flow? Maybe, something got stuck up the river that prevents the water to flow?
- I prefer to ignore what you said.
- You're not logical! How what you described could ever happen?
- Well, I choose to express an opinion, instead of just picking holes in what everyone else is saying, without ever letting on what my own views actually are...!

THE END

Cute story, but the fact remains: You never voice a clear opinion of your own - yet you challenge, ridicule and nitpick the contributions of me and most of the other regular users. I don't like that.

You shouldn't pick on, or argue with the views of others unless you think you have a solid position on the subject - that you are prepared to own up to. Arguing simply for the sake of it, is trolling.

Next time you feel compelled to respond to critisize something that I have said; please also clearly state what your own point of view is. If you don't actually have an opinion, then please do not argue just for the sake of it. Leave it to those who actually care about the topic enough to have an opinion.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Cute story, but the fact remains: You never voice a clear opinion of your own - yet you challenge, ridicule and nitpick the contributions of me and most of the other regular users. I don't like that.

You shouldn't pick on, or argue with the views of others unless you think you have a solid position on the subject - that you are prepared to own up to. Arguing simply for the sake of it, is trolling.

Next time you feel compelled to respond to critisize something that I have said; please also clearly state what your own point of view is. If you don't actually have an opinion, then please do not argue just for the sake of it. Leave it to those who actually care about the topic enough to have an opinion.

+1.

Originally Posted by Hanna

You never voice a clear opinion of your own. [...] Next time you feel compelled to respond to critisize something that I have said; please also clearly state what your own point of view is. If you don't actually have an opinion, then please do not argue just for the sake of it. Leave it to those who actually care about the topic enough to have an opinion.

Do you have an example of that? I mean, I was under impression I express my opinion clear enough as long as I have it, but sometimes I just don't have enough info to base my opinion upon, and I think it's obvious from what I'm trying to say. However, when I see someone's firm opinion, I usually start asking questions, to understand the source of that opinion, at times in a belief I can share that opinion to make it my own. One of the good ways of finding the truth is to look for the contradictions. If I present them and they do not get an adequate explanation, I can safely throw those opinion away for myself and look for something else. I'm truly interested in what's around me (there were reasons for it), but I hate reading books or articles allegedly "explaining everything" - a tactics sometimes used by the "followers". The simple reason that is those fantastic books' authors are not here to comment. I cannot have a dialog with them, cannot present my questions to them, cannot present those with the contradictions, etc. That's why I chose to talk to the real people who have based their opinion on something, and try and dig below that something in a hope to find something useful. If all I hear is "the US/capitalism is responsible for all the evil on this planet" without an adequate explanation, I reserve a right to myself to have some fun with that. I think that complies with the free spirit of the Interenet discussions. (And I hope people would correct my English the same way I try to help those who learn Russian.)

Having said that, I think we can do some fair damage control here. If you want my opinion, just ask. You know some fair amount of my opinions, I believe, like:
- I hate the communism
- I prefer the Western-style capitalism to any other form of the resource distribution presently available
- I think things should be measured in comparison
- I think the 9/11 was neither designed not performed by Al Quaeda
- I think the Soviet Power was just another disaster that hit Russia and some other countries
- I don't think the US is evil, and I don't think the EU is the best thing that could ever happen to Europe
- I don't think the pan-European ideology is sound and solid
- I support Israel in their struggle to survive as an idependent state against the surrounding Arab nations who dream to wipe it out
- I think the so-called Palestinian-Israeli conflict is fed by the external sources (i.e. the other nations use it for their benefits) and I think it's a very dangerious thing to do because the Meggido Mount is located in Israel.
- I don't think Islam is a source of the so-called Islamic terrorism
- I think the big religions were the best psychological and philosophical acheivements of their time, but nowdays they are holding the spirituality of the humanity back
- I think the wars are perhaps the worst things that happen to the humanity and I support destruction of the local customs in favor of establishing the global uniform planetary culture
- I support the expansion of the humanity to the space
- I think the .net developers are not shallow and their PMs are

What else do you want me to share? (Please, don't ask me anymore where did I serve in the military, because I hate that experience and I don't want to discuss it.)

Sounds fair?

PS. So many letters.. gosh..

Someone has to issue a questionnaire with that list in "Introduce Yourself".