Thread: Doku Umarov

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.