I notice that Taibbi old Press Review column, judging by the byline, is now being written by a Russian (Caucasian, actually, going by the name). He needs to discover the paragraph break. Neverthless he's not bad. Nobody can be better than Taibbi though.
Hackworld Hacks Expose "But" Fetish
By Marat Abdulov
While the leading English-language media find their own nation's War Against Terror to be highly complex, requiring a tough military solution to combat supposed Islamic evil, these same media take one look at the Chechnya war and know the simple, obvious solution. And that solution always includes a "but"... On September 5th, two days after the massacre of Russian schoolchildren, the "but" editorials started rolling off the presses. Let's start with England's The Observer: "The massacre at School Number 1 immediately raises many complex questions. But before considering those, we should take time to pause and remember the lives of those killed..." As you will see, the "but" is used primarily to express fake sympathy and horror in order to deflect from the incredibly tactless timing of the editorial's main point – which is that Russia should negotiate with the Chechen separatists who killed the Russian schoolkids... Or you might say that the "but" allows them to gloat about Russia's tragedies while appearing compassionate... In the Observer editorial, the "but" is big and sweet: "But depraved terrorism of this type does not come unannounced. Russian forces fighting the two wars in Chechnya have distinguished themselves with their own brand of brutality -- killing, torturing, maiming and kidnapping with equal abandon and disregard for the rule of law." In other words: "What the terrorists did was bad, yeah. But Russia deserved it." Maybe Russia does – but why is it that every time Russians have their own semi-9/11, the Western press jumps up and down in glee to point out how much the innocent people are to blame for their deaths?... The one lie that the Western press is having a harder time pushing is that the Chechen rebels (or "separatists" or "militants" or anything but "terrorists") are not linked to international terrorism. But... there's still a but, as the Observer notes: "Saudi money, too, has financed Chechen fighters. Some radicals see Chechnya as the new Afghanistan. But there are critical differences. The troubles of Chechnya predate 11 September." Of course this makes no sense because Al Qaeda attacks also predate 9/11. It comes down to playground victim one-upmanship: what bothers the Anglo-American world the most is the thought that the savage Russians could be going through anything like what the Americans are going through. Therefore, the war in Chechnya is evil and the war in Iraq is complex... the Chechen terror acts may be awful, but they point to a deeper problem, while Al Qaeda's attack is just evil, period.
A lot of guys I know in the West talk about whether or not they are "breast men" or "ass men"... When writing about Russia's tragedies, Anglo-American news organizations are definitely "ass men." On September 4th – that is, while the children's bodies were just cooling off – the Washington Post issued its own not-so-subtle "but" editorial, artfully titled "Russian Tragedy"... Oddly enough, it begins with a quote from a famous gay Russophobe, the Marquis de Custine, offering up gory delight in Russian misery: "I do not believe I am exaggerating in affirming that the empire of Russia is a country whose inhabitants are the most miserable on earth, because they suffer at one and the same time the evils of barbarism and of civilization." I take it back...that's just cheap paradoxicalism common to second-rate French intellectuals... The Washington Post distinguished itself during the last major hostage crisis at Dubrovka in 2002 by arguing, while the 900 hostages were still being held, that Dubrovka was not even close to 9/11 and that the theater siege was all Russia's fault, prompting then-ambassador Yuri Ushakov to write an outraged letter to the editor... This time noted Russophobic editorial page chief Fred Hiatt, who incidentally was one of the greatest supporters of the war against Iraq and promoter of the fake WMD threat, again blames Russia... only this time he waits a day until after the hostages were slaughtered, and he conceals it under evasive language... It starts off with these editorial crocodile-tears, common to all of the blame-Russia-for-its-own-tragedy edits: "It is important, in the wake of these events, that the U.S. government reiterate its sympathy for the Russians and offer to help track down and identify the terrorists who planned and carried out this attack. There can be no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for the barbarity of seizing a school and turning children into victims." Wait a minute, reader, do you feel a "but" coming?... yes, here it is! "But the underlying causes of that war have never been dealt with, and the war itself has had a devastating effect on Chechen society. Deeper, longer-lasting reconciliation between Russia and Chechnya requires not the Russian imposition of another puppet government on Chechnya but a more profound search for a way in which the two can live side by side in peace. This must involve negotiation with moderate Chechens -- even moderate Chechen separatists -- and the creation of a truly representative Chechen government." Can someone please tell me what a "moderate Chechen separatist" is? What does he look like? What are his feeding habits? Is he nocturnal or diurnal? Modern science is quite interested! These free-ranging, herbivorous moderates always exist in the eyes of Western op-ed writers who stumble upon other people's centuries-old conflicts, unless of course their own country's children are slaughtered in the process. You don't hear too much editorializing to negotiate with "moderate Al Qaeda operatives," or "moderate Taliban fighters," or even "moderate Iraqi insurgents"... Because they're always evil when they kill your own... At the end of the editorial, Hiatt unleashes a barrage of buts, a real play on buts that leaves the reader scratching his head... or his butt: "Russia's abominable behavior has helped spark but does not excuse Chechen terrorists and their partners in crime. Chechen terrorism makes less likely but no less essential a solution to Chechnya's misery." God only knows what the hell he is saying. You know what he wants to say -- Russians deserve to die in large numbers -- but he's a little less confident in his ability to get away with it these days... after having forgot to insert his "buts" into his newspaper's strident pro-Iraq-war stance in 2002 and 2003... Luckily for Hiatt, he has a moron on his staff, hack columnist Jim Hoagland, who argued the But/Moderate-Separatist Plan in his September 8th article, "Putin's Misdirected Rage." Here is Hoagland's simple, obvious solution, if only Russians would just listen to him: "[Putin] should put forward a clear political path toward self-rule to encourage credible Chechen representatives to separate themselves from the terrorists. This does not mean talking to Shamil Basayev, the most extreme Chechen commander, any more than Bush could negotiate with bin Laden... His administration must work to change the behavior of peaceful Chechens -- and of citizens throughout Russia -- by giving them more responsibility and liberty, not less." Yes, perhaps add a score by John Williams, and the matter's solved. Is it possible to respond rationally to this garbage?... Really, I don't understand why people even write – or read – such vapid thoughts. Are they meant to provide pious comfort, like a Sunday sermon for secular Americans? There are some cultural things I will never understand
I have made my views on Russia's war in Chechnya known in my last column... now is not the time to discuss it... let the children's bodies cool first, let the parents' grieving subside... What shocks me is how blind and stupid the best of the West's hacks are who write about Beslan. They think they've really said something clever and meaningful by using Beslan simply to remind themselves once again how savage Russia is... rather than something more useful, namely, to draw lessons from Chechnya and Beslan and apply it to what they are doing all over the world. For many Western hacks, Russian tragedies are merely opportunities to allow them to show off their sense of moral superiority and advanced state of civilization... Like The Economist, whose Beslan editorial from the September 11th issue has this great "but" sub-heading: "Nobody should excuse what happened in Beslan -- but Chechnya still needs a solution." Nice but, isn't it? They should have just written this sub-heading: "We're compassionate, but you're still a savage Russian." Then, drawing from their thesaurus, they offer another "but" only in the form of a "yet": "If this were war, such bestial, inhuman acts would richly deserve the name of war crimes. The world should recognise and affirm that. Yet it is also important to draw other lessons from Beslan." What lesson is that? The same one Hiatt taught us after Dubrovka: that their Anglo-American tragedy is worse than Russia's tragedy... "In effect, [Putin] wants '9/3' to be seen as Russia's 9/11. But that is disingenuous, and may even be dangerous. The verified links between Chechen terrorists and al-Qaeda are few and tenuous." Actually, the verified links are many and obvious -- including well-documented links between the 9/11 suspects and Chechnya. For example, read the Washington Post article, "Hijackers Had Hoped To Fight In Chechnya, Court Told," published October 23rd, 2002. The Economist ignores that, however, because that would make things complex. In the eyes of the Economist, only the Anglo-Americans have a monopoly on complexity and terrorism: "Al-Qaeda's jihad is the product of complex circumstances, in many countries, in which America's foreign policy was only one contributory factor. Russia's conflict in Chechnya is home-grown, nurtured in a republic that has been systematically destroyed in the struggle for power." In other words, Al-Qaeda is only kinda-sorta America's fault, maybe like 10%, but Chechnya is 100% Russia's fault. Do you get the reasoning here? If your brutal policies spawn terrorism in countries far away, it's basically all right and not really your fault or even complex. If your policies spawned terrorism at home, it's your fault and simple. Unless of course you're the Israelis. (Is any hack pushing the Israelis to talk to "moderate" Islamic Jihad fighters?) Thankfully, the Economist has the solution to the Chechnya problem, offered in another but: "But even after Beslan, [Western leaders] should not condone Russia's human-rights abuses in Chechnya, and they should urge Mr. Putin to seek out moderates with whom to talk." That's right, those loveable, ubiquitous Chechen moderates, the simple solution to a simple problem... Now, if only we could find these moderate Chechens who could bring peace... maybe they're hiding out somewhere with Saddam's WMDs.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com