I suspect that this will prove to have been a mistake:
The Islamic State’s so-called “province†in the Caucasus region has claimed responsibility for its first official attack since its was established earlier this year.
In a statement released online (seen above), and translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, the group says “the soldiers of the Caliphate were able to mount an attack on barracks of the Russian army in southern Dagestan, in Magharamakint village.†The raid allegedly “led to the killing and wounding of a number of them.†Afterwards, “the soldiers of the Caliphate returned to their positions safely and with spoils, and unto Allah is all praise and gratitude,†SITE’s translation reads.
The Islamic State announced its Caucasus branch in June, but the jihadists had not claimed responsibility for any attacks since then.
The Russians are a sentimental people but not about their enemies. Given Russia’s growing participation in the Syrian civil war, I wouldn’t be surprised at seeing a vigorous response to this challenge.
You might find the Russians’ view of the United States’s role in the events in the Middle East interesting:
In this system of values, the West is 100% good and Russia is 100% bad. The West may cooperate with 60% bad Islamists to struggle against the 90% bad guys, such as Assad. Saddam Hussein used to be a 70% “good guy” for a long time, but then he became a 90% “bad guy,” because he stopped doing the things that the “good guys” – the 110% USA – wanted him to do, the publication ironically wrote.
Now all the “bad guys” are dead, and Assad must join them because he is “bad” too, says the author. This is the reason why the “fighters for freedom in Syria had been receiving financial assistance from the CIA until they founded the “Islamic State.” The “good guys” became the “bad guys” in an instant, the author of the article concluded.
If ISIS terrorists were targeting Putin’s Russia, the West would be referring to them as “freedom fighters” rather than terrorists. In this case, the fighters of the Islamic State would become “good” again.
“We are doing only good things, because we are good by definition. If people die, it does not have anything to do with us,” this is the logic that the United States follows.
Freedom fighters.
http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-freedom-fighters-taliban-foreign-policy-2013-2
Steve
The Pravda article lays the foundation for an interesting discussion: How do you know you are not the bad guy? Unless you step outside of your reference system, you cannot fully explore the answer.
The reasons usually is “because I say so” in one form or another. The metaphysical and epistemological tend to overwhelm most people. For religious people, God is the basis, but they never seem to want to use this as their basis.
When everything is relative and your relativity is always the winner, it would seem that you have rigged the game, and therefore, you are the evil one. On the other hand, there is always “might makes right” to fall back on.
I’m not sure that’s a question that an instrumentalist is prepared to answer. Especially since every person’s utility function is different.
I meant the plural you as in Americans. Usually, somebody(s) is put forth as the villain(s) – Russians/Putin, Syrians/Assad, Iranians/Mullahs, Israelis/Netanyahu, and we/I are the good guys. Either my goodness is extended to the group, or the group’s goodness is extended to me.
The US meddles in certain places but not other places. The morality of these choices is never questioned, but the basis is rarely based upon morality. When other countries use the same basis for their choices, their morality is questioned.
The US uses drones to assassinate anybody the president deems unfit to live, and in the process, any number of innocent lives may be ended. When others do this, it is declared terrorism.
Why cannot the Muslims use Sharia Law in their system to find Salman Rushdie guilty of a capital crime, sentence him to death, and use a bomb to execute him? Why are American or European collateral damage more important than Muslims or Arabs?
It somewhat ties into your Weighing Competing Interests post.
In Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, has the US been on the right side, and more so, how much has the US done to initiate the causes, especially in Ukraine?
These are really questions for people who do not question their assumptions, but then, they will probably assume it is for somebody else.
A recurring point for me is that we are frequently not on the legal side which should be enough to give us pause. In Syria we are clearly not on the legal side. In Libya our actions had Security Council authorization to protect civilians but not to bomb Libyan government command and control facilities. The Russians and Chinese have cited our actions there as a clear violation of international law.
Rendering support to the present Ukrainian government is a bit iffy. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
In Ukraine, my question is who engineered the coup? The Russians did not do it. In Syria, the Russian-Syrian defensive treaty may allow them to legally do any number of things – defend Syrian jets against a no-fly zone.
You ain’t the target of my questions. You are are intellectually honest and philosophically sound. I do not necessarily agree with your philosophical foundation, but the conclusions are built upon the premises. You then apply it objectively. I respect that.
Of all the programs, the droning is probably the most egregious. The US is the only country allowed to do it. The US is the only country allowed to determine the rules. The US is the only country allowed to know the rules. There is no trial. It is a summary judgement by the US president, and it is based upon whatever criteria he/she happens to deem relevant at that particular moment. There is no appeal process. The US is allowed to cause as much collateral damage as needed. The US is allowed to do it anywhere in the world except the US.
By “allowed”, I mean that the US has given itself permission because it is the most powerful country in the world. In some circles, this would be called being a bully.
I am not making a value judgement. I really do not care who gets droned (except for Nicki Minaj and Britney Spears). President Obama could ease the problem of Royal Succession by droning Prince Charles for all I care, and he could take out half of London.
I find it interesting that people who claim the US should be the world’s policeman do not have a problem with the drone program. Even questioning the righteousness of the program is enough to make one a potential enemy sympathiser if not outright traitor.
The Russians think the CIA was behind the coup but, then, like us, they’re paranoid. They think the CIA is behind anything that goes against them.