Indeed, whatever these people with beards and sandals, who have probably never done a proper day's work in their life, might think. Look at that Nelson Mandela - he was a terrorist once.

You know what I'd do? String 'em up! It's the only language they understand.

I 'ad that Radovan Karadzic in the back of the cab once.

Seriously, though, many people branded 'terrorists' resort to violence because they have no other option. Often they are defending themselves against much more lethal violence directed against them (as with the Palestinians, for example). Whether it is effective is of course another question that has to be answered on a case-by-case basis. But was it wrong for the French Resistance (who did their fair share of bombing and shooting) to play a part in achieving independence (if one believes they had some effect) in such a manner? Or countless other WW2 resistance movements? Or any number of anti-colonial insurgents?

Reiner, I don't wish to be rude + nor do I wish to get involved in a pointless argument. But your knowledge of the history of the region is faulty to say the least. The idea that there was "a tiny minority of Albanians living in the region" (before when?) is laughable.

Southern Slavs populated the area at the beginning of the 12th century and from that time onwards never comprised more than 20% of the Kosova population. During the era of the Ottoman empire, it was governed as one of four Albanian vilayets: a decision at the 1913 London Conference led to it being left outside the borders of present-day Albania. Censuses both before + after WW2 were manipulated to show Albanians as smaller in number, such as not registering them or forcing them to declare themselves as Muslims or Turks. And so on. The history is pretty clear. Please check on it! What you have suggested is just a bit of old Serb propaganda.

I think it is.  I don't see why it should naturally lead to independence, but if a large enough group of people in an area decide, for whatever reason, that they'd like to take on the responsibilities of self-governance, I don't see any reason to deny them that provided there are no minorities significantly trodden on in the process.  Am I missing something here?

I find this talk of 'rewarding terrorism' to be very unsettling, Reiner.  You can say that one 'doesn't want to reward terrorism' in these situations, but I think that is a term that is almost fundamentally unimportant, and that the following are more important
1) will 'rewarding terrorists' with what they are looking for lead to a cessation or reduction of violence
2) will 'rewarding terrorists' with what they are looking for lead to an improvement in the level of human rights of some oppressed group (without being at the expense of others).

I can't see any good reason to say that 'rewarding terrorism' is bad in principle, really, and I think that that "don't reward terrorism" is a bad principle, for the reasons I've given above.  It seems an easy term to use to wipe real issues under the carpet. 

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Not really.  I disagree with you on a point of principle. Blowing up innocent people to achieve your aims is wrong, no matter whether you are a partisan or a president.  Regrettably we live in an age where those who do so - including both the incumbent "government" in Kosova and Presidents Bush & Clinton - are rewarded by those whose laudable instincts for "supporting the underdog" lead them to turn a blind eye to the atrocities the underdog committed.

Although we could argue for the dismantling of all nation-state borders and barriers, and a return to communities policing themselves as they wish (as indeed was the case in Europe before the C18th) in practice this is certainly unlikely to happen.  If there are disatisfied minorities within nation states, regrettably they are going to have to reach accommodation with the majority population - bombing, stabbing and shooting your way to self-governance surely can't be recommended or supported as legitimate?  As I have mentioned before on these boards,  the British Government has given "political asylum" to Ahmet Zakayev, a Chechen "separatist". Mr Zakayev is wanted in Russia on over 100 counts of murder in his own right, but this is only the start of things for this particular charmer.  He is also the Official Spokesman for the Chechen terror movement.  It was Mr Zakayev, sitting comfortably in his flat in Britain (who is paying for that, and how?) who "took responsibility" for the Moscow "theatre siege" of the musical "Nord-Ost".  Since there has been a considerable disinformation campaign, it's worth remembering here what happened - a large number of female suicide bombers, with explosives wired to their bodies, infiltrated the audience by simply buying tickets to the show.  A smaller number of gunmen (estimated around 8-10) armed with submachine-guns accompanied them.  When the deadline ran out for their demands to be met,  the gunmen began shooting the hostages.  This prompted "Alpha" (the Russian equivalent of the SAS) to go immediately to "Plan B", and throw gas-pellets through the roof (where they'd already begun setting up a "Plan A" whose details won't ever be known)... as a result of the uncoordinated concentration of this gas, a large number of hostages died in the attempt to save those being shot.  It was also Mr Zakayev who "assumed responsibility" for the Beslan School Siege, in which over 300 kids died.  Interestingly the finger of blame outside Russia has concentrated on incriminating the Kremlin for both incidents, which really speaks volumes about the degree to which mass delusion can be aided and abetted by a Washington-skewed mass media.  Strangely, the issue of why Mr Zakayev has been permitted to continue working for a terror organisation (in complete breach of the conditions in which political asylum is granted in Britain) has not been investigated,  and he remains at large to continue these activities unhindered.

You will excuse the apparent deviation from the topic on the card, but this - the Beslan massacre of 300+ children, and the Moscow Theatre Siege - are the grim realities of a laissez-faire attitude to terrorism.  I include in the term "terrorism" those acts in which innocent civilians are attacked or threatened - regardless of whether it is a government or a non-governmental grouping which undertakes such actions.

Perhaps if, as I have, you had friends or colleagues who had been directly involved in such incidents, and seen the longterm effects, you would think differently?   

I like to believe you would.

I always feel uneasy about this phrase "innocent civilians", implying that ordinary soldiers are guilty and deserve whatever they get. Many soldiers are drafted into the army whether they like it or not and have to obey orders. And some civilians are guilty of supporting terrorism.

For me the difference applies when innocent civilians are the overt targets of such action.  Iraqi insurgents, for example, have primarily (but not exclusively) directed their attacks at the occupying power and those involved in supplying and resourcing it.

I differ from your view on Zakayev - he is wanted for questioning about over 100 murders in which he himself is accused, including the machine-gunning of 35 women removed from a passenger train by his troops.  (The women, incidentally, were Chechens, who had refused to assist him).  This is quite in addition to his activities as the mouthpiece for an organisation which kidnaps and murders schoolchildren,  which for me is an indefensible act and cannot be justified by any sophistry.


Although what you say about conscript soldiers may have validity,  machine-gunning unarmed women on a railway station, or schoolchildren in a school, must be distinguished from the deaths of uniformed armed men who die in combat.  There cannot be any excuse for machine-gunning children - none whatsoever, nor for the man who assumed responsibility for the action in which they died.


Those who died were mostly those who were sitting next to where the gas-pellets fell - if two pellets fell together, those adjacent got double the "safe" dosage or more,  and of course, fatalities occurred.

As far as knowing people personally who were in the theatre siege...   it's only really when you hear first-hand, non-doctored accounts of what actually occurred that it becomes possible to pick your way through the media spin (on both sides).

I agree with you here.  My point in mentioning them was that if we do indeed go down the line of condoning some actions committed by those who felt (or claimed) no other avenue was open to them,  we may find ourselves supporting events, and their perpetrators, which are indefensible on any reasonable scale.  I believe Vanessa Redgrave (who has been Zakayev's "guardian angel") has fallen into exactly this trap, and prejudiced her credibility fatally as a result.