Military Review

When terrorism is powerless

41
When terrorism is powerless

The consequences of one of a series of recent terrorist attacks in Europe. In this case, in Stockholm.



As stated in the article “Blow up the state from the inside” (“NVO” No. 3 from 27.01.17), the terms “hybrid war” and “color revolution” constantly used in Russia and abroad are not scientific, but propaganda. The “hybrid war” is the war itself, and the “color revolution” is simply a revolution.

However, there are terms that are even more common and even more absurd: "international terrorism" and, accordingly, "the fight against international terrorism." And the point here is not even that the very concept of “terrorism” still does not have a strict scientific definition. This word is often called a variety of actions, very different from each other in nature and purpose.

FIGHTING IS NOT WITH THE METHOD

If someone wrote that in 1941 the USSR, the USA and Great Britain created an anti-tank coalition, they would consider him an idiot or a madman. But the Wehrmacht was actually extremely widely and successfully used Tanks during his aggression. The use of tanks was his most important method of warfare. And terrorism is just a method. That is, an “anti-terrorist coalition” is just as meaningless as an “anti-tank coalition”. It is necessary to fight not with the method, but with the one who uses it. As euphemism "international terrorism", as everyone understands perfectly well, hides a radical Sunni Islam, or rather, its Salafi (Wahhabi) trend. There is Shiite terrorism, but its scale and degree of danger are completely incomparable with Sunni. Therefore, the goal of the struggle should be ideology and its carriers, not methods.

The thesis that it is useless to fight with ideology should be rejected right away: why is it possible and necessary to fight against the Nazi ideology, but not with the Wahhabi one?

By the birth of this disorienting euphemism, humanity is indebted to left-wing liberals, which were discussed in the article “The Trap for Trump and America” (“NVO” No. 8 from 10.03.17). Their tolerance and political correctness, in other words, every kind of indulgence for carriers of a different identity (to the detriment of carriers of traditional identity) does not allow calling things by their proper names.

Hence, in particular, the rejection of the integration of migrants in Europe and the complete loss of control over them. Hence the complete connivance of the propaganda of radical Islam, including through the TV channel Al-Jazeera. Hence the completely wild situation that is taking place today in a number of European countries and in the USA - radical Islamists and left-wing liberals jointly silence moderate Muslims, who convincingly prove that radicals cannot be considered Muslims at all, because there is no radicalism in the original Islam. In response, the radicals and liberals blamed the moderates ... of Islamophobia! And successfully deny their access to any media. Hence the work of “international humanitarian organizations” in Syria in the ranks of radical militants, including Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda). It is very likely that these “humanists” organized a recent provocation using “the use of chemical weapons Tyrant Assad ", in response to which followed the insane and senseless missile attack by the United States on the base of Shairat.

The situation is aggravated by the support of the “overthrow of tyrants” in Islamic countries, which has become manic in the West. Although, after the overthrow of the tyrant, in almost 100% of cases, the inhabitants of each particular country become much worse than they were with him: after all, the radical Islamists usually replace the tyrants.

Instead of ideological, the Western left-wing liberals came up with a social explanation of the phenomenon of terrorism - the poverty of the population, the low level of education and the actions of the "imperialists", by which the West, Russia and Israel are traditionally understood. A false explanation, of course, does not allow to find an adequate solution to the problem.

At the same time, Western scholars repeatedly wrote that not only the creators and organizers of radical Islamic groups, but also the majority of ordinary carriers of the corresponding ideas are people with a level of education and prosperity above the average (and only a certain part of the “terrorist infantry” is recruited from the uneducated poor who are presented with ready-made primitivized ideology). Moreover, among European Muslims, the proportion of radicals is higher than among their ethnic compatriots remaining on historical homeland, where the standard of living and education is obviously lower than in Europe. Even more, more and more native Europeans are converting to Islam, and in the vast majority of cases, neophytes are extreme radicals. But all these facts do not fit the left-liberal theory, therefore they are ignored by it.

FROM WHERE WAS RADICAL ISLAM

The medieval Arab caliphate was at that time the most developed and advanced state in the world. According to the level of development of the economy, science, medicine, the degree of humanism and tolerance, then Europe was not suitable for Arabs, and against the background of the Arabs, Europeans were outspoken barbarians. Although it was a thousand years ago, in the Arabic and, more broadly, the Islamic world, this is very well known. And they compare them with their current position - a firm seat on the oil and gas “needle” (who has it), the highest corruption (regardless of the form of government and living standards), complete scientific and technological helplessness compared not only with the West and Russia, but also with East Asia.

Apparently, it is this historical and civilizational humiliation that gives rise to the well-known thesis “Islam is the solution.” And since Islam is interpreted by the creators of the thesis very specifically, hence the methods. In 1960 – 1980, left ideas were popular among Arabs, then terrorism (especially Palestinian) was mostly political, not religious. But after the collapse of the socialist system, Islam became the only ideology for the offended residents of the Islamic, first of all - the Arab world.

As for leftist liberalism, it is used by the leaders of the Islamic radicals in two forms. First, liberals playing to the Islamists are typical “useful idiots” (in this case, this Leninist definition fits perfectly). Secondly, the specificity of tolerance and political correctness in Europe itself perfectly feeds the radical ideology, being a living and visual confirmation of the “moral decay of the West” against the background of “pure Islam”. It is from here that the phenomenon of the transition to Islam of the indigenous Europeans (such cases have not yet become widespread, but they are far from being isolated).

Thus, statements like “let's improve the lives of people popular in liberal circles, then there will be no terrorism,” either incompetence or propaganda, or both at the same time. Radical Islam is a political and ideological, not a socio-economic phenomenon. That is why among the radicals there are so many people from very rich Arabian monarchies and European countries and almost no citizens, for example, a completely impoverished, overpopulated Bangladesh.


The adherents of radical Islam chose for themselves the main method of warfare namely terror.


It is clear that Islamic radicalism is the most threatening to countries where Muslims constitute the overwhelming majority of the population — in which radicals may even seize power. In countries where Muslims are a solid minority (this, in particular, Russia, and now the whole of Western Europe), this option is hardly possible, but Islamic terrorism can make people's lives unbearable. In the worst case, this may lead to the power of overt Nazis (as the only "saviors" from Islamic radicals) and / or cause the territorial disintegration of the country. Moreover, in order to unleash a terrorist war in the country, at first there may be very few radicals.

ON RUSSIAN SOIL

Russia knows all this very well: it went through two Chechen wars, which played a colossal role in the modern history of the country. And the main point here was just the actual link between the left liberals and Islamic radicals in full accordance with the Western ideological mainstream. The reason for the defeat of Russia in the first war was primarily the demoralized population, power and the army, a direct betrayal of a significant part of politicians and most of the media - an exclusively liberal orientation (it was then that in our country the word "human rights activist" became a rude curse). As you know, one “human rights activist”, a State Duma deputy of the first and second convocations, from the Dudaev’s bunker urged Russian servicemen to surrender. This was not an anomaly, but completely typical at that moment behavior for this group of people. For this betrayal, the domestic liberals then cruelly paid (quite deservedly), but the whole country also paid with them.

The government and society (unlike the liberals) made conclusions from the first war, so the second war was won. Moscow managed to separate those who fought for the national independence of Chechnya from Islamic radicals, who absolutely did not need Chechnya, but needed an “Islamic caliphate”, first in the North Caucasus and then in the Volga region, in the Urals and in Siberia. The former eventually became allies of Moscow in the fight against the latter. In addition, it was realized that only one method is effective against the radicals - extremely harsh forceful suppression, even the slightest concessions are completely destructive (this fact is fully confirmed by Israeli experience).

The concessions of Moscow in the 1995 year during the terrorist attack in Budyonnovsk very quickly led to the catastrophe and to many new victims. Errors in the organization and planning of operations during the terrorist attacks on Dubrovka and in Beslan led to very large casualties among the hostages, but nevertheless, in strategic terms, both of these episodes became a success: the enemy realized that the Kremlin would not make concessions, that is, terrorism in the form of mass hostage seizures, it becomes useless. Terrorism is after all a method of achieving political and military goals. If the goals are not achieved, the method loses its meaning.

Without much exaggeration, it can be said that the tragedy of modern Russia is the absence of right-wing liberal opposition and democratic democrats in the country. And the government and the left-liberal opposition jointly put citizens before the choice between, simply speaking, the procession and the gay parade. Since for the majority of sane people such an alternative is completely unacceptable, there is a rapid decline in interest in politics, expressed in the equally rapid decline in turnout at elections of all levels. The good thing here is that the left-wing liberals, by their anti-national stance, have made themselves completely marginalized and have no chance to come to power. On this side, respectively, there are no prospects for Islamic radicals. But this joy, to put it mildly, is not enough. There are too many other aspects of the problem.

In particular, it would be very useful for the struggle against Islamic radicals if the Kremlin remembered the 14 article of the Russian Constitution, which states that Russia is a secular state. The rapid growth of the role of the Russian Orthodox Church, encouraged by the state, makes the demands of raising the status of moderate and loyal Muslims fully legitimate (if you spend Isaak’s relatively honest weaning, do not complain about the scarves on the heads of schoolgirls in several regions of the Volga region and the North Caucasus). The trouble is that from moderate loyal disloyal radicals sometimes grow, of which, as mentioned above, “for a start” does not need much. But to hope for the celebration of 14-th article, we now just do not have to.

Of course, a positive factor for Russia is that our Muslims (as opposed to European ones) are historical compatriots, the same creators of a common country, like representatives of other ethnic groups and denominations. In this regard, the idea of ​​a single civil nation, which was recently expressed in the Kremlin, would be extremely useful. After all, an ideology can truly be defeated only by a different ideology, which is very often lacking for the citizens of Russia, especially the young. Unfortunately, the idea can be killed at the very beginning, on the one hand, Russian “professional patriots” with the slogan “yes, yes, it’s time to make everyone Russian and Orthodox”, on the other - their non-Russian “colleagues” with the slogan “hands off our nations and religions. "

In fact, the idea should consist in the common civil patriotism of all Russians, regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation, and the only Russian privilege that they already have is de jure and de facto Russian. Alas, it is likely that the aforementioned national radicals, as well as our “native” bureaucrats, will ruin a wonderful idea. The latter can very easily and successfully turn the concept into something completely indigestible, dead and meaningless.

However, like Europe, Muslims may have gradually become a problem for Russia, as clearly shown by the recent terrorist attack in the St. Petersburg metro. Until now, migrants from Central Asia, contrary to the opinion of domestic Nazis, have harmed Russia only in the economic sphere - they created a demand for low-skilled low-paid, almost slave labor, which eliminated the need for innovation. And exactly where innovations must first be born and implemented - in large cities.

But now migrants are beginning to create problems of a different nature. They all know the Russian language worse, and the terrible economic situation in their countries makes the citizens of these countries the very potential "terrorist infantry." Departure to the "Islamic Caliphate" two years ago, the commander of the Tajik riot police Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov was not even a wake-up call, but a whole alarm call, which, alas, almost no one heard. Citizens of the countries of Central Asia are much more Islamized and radicalized than the indigenous Russian Muslims, while in many regions of Russia, it is the newcomers who are gradually pushing the indigenous ones from the Muslim parishes and take them under their control.

Chechnya as an effective barrier to radicalism

Unfortunately, in this regard, the problem is created by the Kremlin’s keen desire, at least a little, but to restore the USSR in the form of a Eurasian Union, drawing as many countries as possible into the carcass, even an effigy. The initial configuration of this union Russia – Belarus – Kazakhstan was the only acceptable one, it was her that needed to be rebuilt painstakingly for many decades and only then to think about expansion. But no, not having achieved real success in an optimal configuration, Armenia was dragged into the Eurasian Union and Kyrgyzstan, which is in a disastrous socio-economic state, was not bordering on its other countries. It was from Kyrgyzstan that the “Petersburg suicide bomber” came to us. At the same time, Moscow with a stubbornness worthy of a much better application, pulls into the Eurasian Union even less wealthy Tajikistan. Fortunately, Dushanbe strongly resists.

Again, this does not go without domestic left-wing liberals. They vehemently argue that the Russian economy cannot do without migrants (why can't we do without unskilled, almost slave labor?) And that migrants should be given as many rights and privileges as possible. Meanwhile, the European experience clearly and without exception indicates that the more migrants receive rights and privileges, the less they seek to integrate into the host society and comply with the laws of the host country. But, as mentioned above, for a true liberal, if a theory contradicts facts, so much the worse for facts.

In fact, it is necessary to destroy the labor base of migrants in Russia (which is also based on the strongest corruption), and to give the migrants themselves a hard choice: full integration or immediate deportation. There can be no talk of any respect for their identity, they have their own countries for its realization.

With regard to the internal situation in Russia, in different regions of the country in terms of the fight against radicals, it is very different. In Tatarstan, Dagestan, especially in Ingushetia, local authorities sometimes do not know how to resist the radicals, and sometimes they almost play along with them. Best of all, the situation is, of course, in Chechnya, which is why, probably, its current president is so fiercely hated by domestic liberals (when during the first Chechen Kadyrov were on the other side, the liberals didn’t have the slightest complaint).

As far as Ramzan Akhmatovich really loves Russia, only he can say. But the fact that for many years he has been actively working in her interests is an indisputable fact. And he is ready to fight the radicals both inside and outside the country. Kadyrov hates Wahhabis (“shaytan” by his expression) for two main reasons. First, he is the bloodshed of the Wahhabis (they killed his father). Secondly, he is a Sufi, that is, an ideological anti-Wahhabi within the framework of Sunni Islam. It provides both harsh power suppression of those who have already become radicals, and alternative indoctrination of those who remain moderate. Moreover, it is trying to do this not only within its own republic, but throughout the entire Russian Muslim community, as evidenced by last year’s “Grozny fatwa”, a kind of anti-Wahhabi manifesto, which is offered to all Russian Muslims.

Here it is necessary to clearly and clearly understand that it is necessary either to recall the 14 article of the Constitution and supplement it with the ideology of a single civic nation, or to de-radicalize Muslims within the framework of the Islamic doctrine. The Kremlin, alas, does not provide us with the first option, so let then at least Kadyrov implement the second. Wahhabi ideology is completely and constantly exported to us from abroad, that is, it is constantly being reproduced. And the fight against it should be carried out constantly and steadily, and it is impossible to conduct it only within the country. In Russia, the struggle must be waged by methods of power and ideology, abroad - purely power.

SYRIAN THEATER OF MILITARY ACTION

Of course, a special place in the fight against Islamic radicalism is now occupied by the war in Syria. In the short term, the emergence in this country of many Sunni radical groups, the main of which were the terrorist organizations Dzhebkhat al-Nusra (local Al-Qaida) and the Islamic Caliphate banned in Russia, could even be considered useful for Russia. After all, a very significant part of the domestic Islamic radicals went to Syria and Iraq, to ​​which the “caliphate” also spread, reducing the terrorist threat inside our country. But in the long run, this would be a very difficult problem for us, when all of Syria would come under the power of the Wahhabis.

For radicals, external expansion is an ideological duty, both at the level of the “caliphate” as a whole, and for each of his “citizen” in his personal capacity. Naturally, the main objects of expansion are the countries fully or partially Islamic (including Russia), and every single Islamic militant is obliged to carry the Wahhabi ideology primarily to his own country. Accordingly, any talk about the fact that this is “not our war” or “let's better deal with the Caucasus rather than Syria” is either complete incompetence or propaganda, as is the case with the talk that terrorism can be overcome through the elimination of poverty. Russia, on the contrary, too long shied away from entering the Syrian war, although the need for this step was obvious for a very long time. Apparently, Tehran persuaded Moscow, for which he thanks a lot. For Iran, the struggle against the Sunni radicals has its own ideological and geopolitical background, but that is another question.

In a year and a half of the war, Russia has achieved significant military success, destroying several thousand radicals and ensuring that the Syrian army goes over to the offensive in most areas. Political successes were no less: Russia destroyed the alliance of Turkey and the Arabian monarchies, which until the beginning of last year ensured the success of the radicals. The most important thing is the change of the role of Turkey, which supported all the anti-Assad forces, without exception, being a sponsor and rear base for them. Moscow forced Ankara to dissociate itself from "An-Nusra" and begin to fight against the "caliphate". This was discussed in detail in the article “Who really is Turkey for Russia” (“NVO” No. 13 from 14.04.17). Saudi Arabia, which stands behind Al-Nusroy, quarreled first with Qatar, which is now the only sponsor of the “Caliphate”, and then with the United Arab Emirates. More on this in the article “Yemen is the second front for Syria” (“NVO” No. 14 from 21.04.17). Moreover, it was Russia’s actions that prompted the United States to stop the imitation of the struggle against the “caliphate” and to start it seriously (both in Iraq and in Syria). All this creates an opportunity in the foreseeable future to “squeeze” the radicals in Syria and Iraq.

True, there is a "small" problem here. “Caliphate” is an adversary for all other coalitions (Syrian-Russian-Iranian; Kurdish-American; Syrian Free Army and Turkey), but the contradictions between these others allow it to continue to exist and fight. Since coalitions even if they do not openly fight each other, at least they block and restrain each other, this does not allow them to use all the resources against the “caliphate”. The leadership of each coalition cannot help but think about the desirability of other coalitions fighting the “caliphate”, wasting human and material resources. Moreover, the leadership of each coalition cannot help but think about the desirability of the “caliphate” resisting all other coalitions as successfully as possible and inflicting them as much losses as possible so that the positions of the remaining coalitions during the final division of Syria weaker. As a result, the “caliphate” will live much longer than it could if all the others had united against him for real. And even when it is destroyed, the question will be how irreplaceable losses will be incurred by its members and whether they will not try to recreate the “caliphate” elsewhere.

NOT TO SAVE EUROPE

For Russia, of course, the most dangerous option is Afghanistan. From there, the “Caliphate” will immediately move to Central Asia, which, from the point of view of the Caliphat leaders, is already entering, along with Afghanistan, into their “Vilayat Khorasan”. As mentioned above, the resistance of this region to the ideology of the radicals is an order of magnitude, if not two lower, than in Russia. Even Kazakhstan will be under threat, where in recent years there has also been a noticeable activation of the radicals (especially in the west of this country, from where they can penetrate to the south of the Urals and the Lower Volga region). And such an alignment will become for Russia not just a problem, but practically a disaster.

Understanding this, Moscow is already beginning to look for contacts with the Taliban, who ideologically almost do not differ from the “Caliphate”, but are in a state of fierce “intraspecific competition” and at the same time have no particular desire to lead expansion beyond Afghanistan. Therefore, we have to choose the lesser of the evils so that later we do not have to wage a war in Central Asia, much more bloody and cruel than it is now in Syria. A definite guarantee against the worst case scenario in this region is Iran, which serves as a hard barrier against the expansion of radical Sunnis to the east. If the bet on the Taliban and Iran does not work (or does not work completely), the likelihood that we will have to fight in Central Asia, alas, is very high.

If the radicals go to Africa (to a large extent this is already happening), for us it would be a much more favorable option. Because from there, Russia will no longer be under attack, but Europe, which we are absolutely not obliged to save. And there is no need to demagogy about the “common threat”: ideologically, for the present left-liberal Europe, the threat is we, not Islamic radicals. The situation may change if the Europeans find the strength to finally bring the normal right to power (those for whom the left-wing liberals have now labeled the “far right”), but so far there is no need to impose Europe as an ally. Let her solve her own generated problems.

We are constantly offended by Europe, which does not thank us for repeated salvation (from Batu, Napoleon, Hitler). Let's stop being offended and save too. Especially in the conditions when this very Europe imposed sanctions against us (in this case it is absolutely unimportant on what problem these sanctions are). Let the "useful idiots" continue to receive refugees in unlimited quantities, it absolutely should not concern us.

Of course, Moscow is doing quite right in helping General Hufftar in Libya, the only consistent fighter against the radicals, but here it is quite enough to supply him with second-hand weapons and military equipment. Moreover, Hufftar except for us already helps very militarily strong Egypt. An alliance with Cairo for Moscow would be extremely useful, in fact, it is already emerging as Egypt emerged from Saudi influence and rapprochement with the much more moderate UAE and Kuwait. We can fully strengthen the already huge military power of Egypt with new supplies of weapons, giving it the opportunity to ensure the victory of Hufftar in Libya and drive the “Caliphate” into the depths of the Sahara. This should be done precisely to suppress the Sunni radicals, but in no case to save Europe.

However, the whole picture can destroy the very Donald Trump, on which so many hoped so much in Russia. He really wants to eliminate the “Caliphate”, but he understands very poorly how to do this. In general, he understands very little in politics. In addition, he is irrational, impulsive and under the strongest pressure of his own establishment and next of kin. As a result, this right-wing conservative can bring much more benefit to the Islamic radicals than all left-wing liberals put together, if they seriously believe in the slogan "Assad should leave." After all that has already happened in Syria itself and in other countries of the Middle East, further adherence to this slogan is either a clinic or ... leftist liberalism. Or is it the same thing?
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2017-04-28/1_946_terrorism.html
41 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 30 2017 07: 07
    +2
    The concessions of Moscow in 1995 during the terrorist attack in Budennovsk very quickly led to disaster and many new victims. Errors in organizing and planning operations during the attacks on Dubrovka and in Beslan led to very large casualties among the hostages,

    The concessions of Chernomyrdin in Budenovsk led first to Kizlyar, and then to Dubrovka and Beslan.
    Let the "useful" continue to accept refugees in unlimited quantities, this should absolutely not concern us.

    It would be so, but in 20-30 years, refugees will become the MOST in England, France, nuclear weapons will fall to them, ....
    1. siberalt
      siberalt April 30 2017 12: 15
      +4
      And where does Islam go? Any religion is radical. The crusaders are gone, the Islamists have come. What was Lenin wrong in proclaiming that "religion is opium for the people"?
      1. tanit
        tanit April 30 2017 13: 53
        +1
        Lenin was wrong in one thing — he did not “proclaim” this. Literally sounds like this - "religion is the opium for the poor." Especially for you I will explain. The poor are those who do not have money to buy opium, but want to "forget". This is the first. Secondly, it was written not by Lenin, but by Marx. It seems that the exam in your youth was not, no?
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 01
          +1
          Quote: tanit
          it was written not by Lenin, but by Marx.

          - But is there anything to confirm, of course?
          - do it, wait yes

          Be careful on the bends, Tanya ...
          1. tanit
            tanit April 30 2017 14: 16
            +1
            Kitten, don’t joke like that. And confirm - it is. Socialism and religion. Lenin's article. In it, he quoted Marx. Any questions, fluffy?
            1. tanit
              tanit April 30 2017 14: 18
              +1
              Or also give a reference to Marx? Yes, you seem to have been trained to read and write, you can read Marx, did you have to read Marx differently many years ago, no?
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 23
                +1
                Quote: tanit
                Marx really had to be read differently many years ago, no?

                - baby, I read a lot of things ... I don’t have to remember any ... bullshit ..

                You, the sun, have requested a link. So where?
                1. tanit
                  tanit April 30 2017 14: 26
                  0
                  Four-armed moon-faced, open the article by Vladimir Ilyich - and read. You see, Lenin didn’t have twitter, alas. You must have forgotten in your old age that books also exist?
                  1. tanit
                    tanit April 30 2017 14: 27
                    0
                    The title of the article is, the author is. Read. Or you can not read without links? I'm so sorry. )))
                  2. Cat man null
                    Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: tanit
                    tanit

                    “Tan, I’d like a reference ... I don’t have to guess what you mean, right?”
                    - or NOT THIS WAY? fellow
                    1. tanit
                      tanit April 30 2017 14: 34
                      +3
                      Not this way. To begin with, I don’t dance. At least start with this. The name is written in the profile, cat.
                      1. tanit
                        tanit April 30 2017 14: 36
                        +3
                        Or NOT WRITTEN? And, the cat is not the reader, the cat is the writer ...)) Once again, I’m very sorry.))
                      2. Cat man null
                        Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: tanit
                        To begin with, I ...

                        - for me you are Tanya wink

                        - Duc, etta ... closer to the subject ... a reference somewhere?

                        - I am interested to understand what place in this swamp you are trying to rely on?

                        Scarecrow laughing
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 30 2017 16: 15
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        What was Lenin wrong in proclaiming that "religion is opium for the people"?

        The fact that any ideology is actually a religion.
        As for terrorism, it is by no means Muslims, but US intelligence agencies.
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN April 30 2017 16: 34
          +3
          Quote: Dart2027
          As for terrorism, it is by no means Muslims, but US intelligence agencies.

          You can look broader ... with the tsar, too, they began to fight terror, alas, pre-revolutionary Russia, bomb throwers, under the USSR they were attributed to national heroes. what
  2. apro
    apro April 30 2017 07: 39
    +1
    Terrorism has been, is, and will be for a long time, it is a method of struggle for dominance, color for every taste, depending on the task for the sake of material values ​​and the satisfaction of mental deviations.
    It is not possible to completely win, but stopping and leading to stable remission is quite possible, at least in a single territory, but this will require the will and independent goal-setting.
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 30 2017 07: 57
    +2
    When terrorism is powerless

    A question for the author - when will people all over the world adhere to only one idea of ​​building a society and will not have any disagreements?
    1. tanit
      tanit April 30 2017 14: 01
      +1
      It is useless and pointless to ask the author questions. He is Khramchikhin. And this is a diagnosis, alas.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik April 30 2017 08: 06
    +2
    International terrorism is already a brand, a trademark, a business, a lot of money has already been invested in it by respectable citizens from around the world ... And it brings income and big ...
  5. populist
    populist April 30 2017 08: 55
    +2
    Here it is necessary to clearly and clearly understand that it is necessary either to recall the 14th article of the Constitution and supplement it with the ideology of a single civil nation, or to de-radicalize Muslims within the framework of Islamic doctrine. The Kremlin, alas, does not provide us with the first option, so let then at least Kadyrov implement the second.

    Quite a delusional article. negative am Under the guise of several correct or seeming such thoughts, the author is trying to push two ideas completely absurd and extremely dangerous. This is the creation of the “Russian nation” fool and “deradicalization of Muslims by Kadyrov” No.
    1. tanit
      tanit April 30 2017 14: 03
      +2
      It’s you who didn’t read his opuses about landing on football fields IL-76 with Chinese troops on board. (and don't read) hi
  6. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan April 30 2017 09: 14
    +6
    I am a supporter of symmetrical actions. We blew up a bomb in the subway with us - a member of the royal family of the SA or Qatar must be destroyed, pirates attacked the ship with the Russian crew - people without identification signs cut out the settlement, where the pirates came from. Scraps of terrorists should be pointedly buried in the shoes of pigs in a cattle burial ground. Only these methods will bring results.
    Europe does not need to be saved, on the contrary, any radicals they have (Islamists, Nazis, gay activists) should be supported in every way so that the EU becomes Afghanistan. If the Europeans fiercely kill each other, or if Black begins to massively slaughter the indigenous population, then this will be our great success.
    1. cost
      cost April 30 2017 16: 35
      +2
      Scraps of terrorists should be pointedly buried in the shoes of pigs in a cattle burial ground. Only these methods will bring results.

      Where have you read such horror stories? In the Internet? So do not believe them - this is all a lie. According to Islam, after death you can do anything you like with the body, it will not affect in any way whether it will go to heaven or hell, even if you tear off the head of a dead man. This is nothing more than a cheap myth ...
      1. tanit
        tanit April 30 2017 17: 10
        +1
        Here is a strange thing - Islam. Each district Islamic pop interprets it in its own way. It would seem - but from what overreach? But ... In Afghanistan, the times of the Soviet Union paid for the "red" mullah more than for a wrecked tank. (I won’t lay out the pruffs, they weren’t there then, and the names of articles indicating the authors are useless)
  7. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 April 30 2017 10: 53
    +2
    Well, there are a few common thoughts ... Yes, there is no reasonable, sane opposition in the country. And this is really strange. There are (despite the huge pressure on the real "line of destruction) skillful businessmen building effective production. There are really thinking people who are able to work politically. But there is virtually no alternative, but reasonable, point of view! Only economists who exist despite everything and everything but they are not politicians, not their job.
    You know ... Looking at all this unnatural affair, I increasingly like the crazy theory about the existence of the Soviet plan of "immersion in capitalism". They say we will show the population what it is - real capitalism. And as they supersede them, they will understand everything, so we will return, solving many problems along the way. In this context, everything is logical - you cannot allow a realistically working capitalist regime to appear. Tasks should be solved, and people should hate the authorities more and more. To, then, when everything is ripe, the restoration went smoothly. Damn it, agree.
    Another thing is that the "game of capitalism" was very carried away by Rublev igrul. And there is no desire to give the command "back all of a sudden". But in order to systematically change the game, firstly, there are no brains, and secondly, it’s scary - effective specialists will instantly sweep away the “restorers” who have played with the game. Yes, the assumption is wild. But pretty ...
    1. tanit
      tanit April 30 2017 14: 06
      0
      Oh, it's Khramchikhin ... A million monkeys in a million years will be able to print War and Peace. Yes - “sound thoughts flicker”, yes. Like a monkey behind a typewriter.
  8. Glory1974
    Glory1974 April 30 2017 12: 08
    +1
    And terrorism is just a method. That is, an “anti-terrorist coalition” is just as meaningless as an “anti-tank coalition”. It is necessary to fight not with the method, but with the one who uses it.

    But I believe that terrorism is a form of warfare, while a method is a way of carrying out terrorist attacks.

    As for the internal situation in Russia, in different regions of the country in terms of the fight against radicals, it is very different. In Tatarstan, Dagestan, especially Ingushetia, local authorities sometimes do not know how to counter radicals

    And here I agree. But there are many questions for the government. Why is Wahhabism prohibited in Chechnya, but not in other republics? Is this betrayal or stupidity?
    If Wahhabism is not prohibited, how will local authorities fight it?
  9. tanit
    tanit April 30 2017 13: 58
    +1
    Oh .. One time I was glad that Mr. Khramchikhin stopped writing about the millions of Chinese soldiers on bicycles in the winter and about the Chinese IL-76 with the landing, landing on football fields. In vain rejoiced. Then at least it was funny. Now there is no. Now it’s scary that the next zhurchichikhinsky nonsense is being discussed by quite adequate people.
  10. tanit
    tanit April 30 2017 14: 38
    0
    And a reference to what you so require, tell me?
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 44
      0
      Quote: tanit
      And a reference to what you so require, tell me?

      - your bazaar requires confirmation. Pruflinkom, on the theme of the bazaar, yeah yes
      1. tanit
        tanit April 30 2017 14: 50
        0
        Kastratik, why are you so nervous? Former pricks itch? belay
  11. tanit
    tanit April 30 2017 14: 47
    0
    Cat Man Null,
    Well, castrate, I’ll give a reference. But why do stuffers need cat filler -tell it?
    1. tanit
      tanit April 30 2017 14: 52
      0
      To a criticism of the Hegelian philosophy of law. K. Marx - Will the same thing not suit you? Oh yes, he hasn’t been blogging for a long time. laughing
      1. tanit
        tanit April 30 2017 14: 56
        0
        Well, castrated animals are hard to please. request
    2. Cat man null
      Cat man null April 30 2017 14: 57
      +1
      Quote: tanit
      Why do stuffers need cat filler -tell it?

      - well, if purely for fun - come on ...
      - And what, until now, have you realized that you are not trying to communicate with a cat at all?

      Well you're stupid-oooh fool
      1. tanit
        tanit April 30 2017 15: 04
        0
        Of course, I realized that cats aren’t cut off during sterilization as much as cats are castrated, no? )))
        1. tanit
          tanit April 30 2017 15: 07
          0
          Once again for acute unprecedented. Lenin, V.I. "Socialism and Religion." K. Marx "Toward a Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law." laughing Read, educate. And do not argue about what you do not know. wink
          1. tanit
            tanit April 30 2017 15: 17
            0
            By the way, I haven’t had such fun for a long time, thank you.
            Sincerely. laughing
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 1 May 2017 01: 36
              +1
              Quote: tanit
              Best regards

              - you have a lot ... you're tired of already yes
              - respect, yeah hi
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Drako
    Drako 3 May 2017 20: 27
    +1
    Cat Man Null,
    Aren't you a scarecrow? Google does not know how to use)) But with a clever look to demand a link)) An obvious victim of the exam))
    1. tanit
      tanit 13 May 2017 15: 44
      0
      I got excited when I wrote about "adequate people." laughing Well, it happens. But the "cat" is not a victim of the exam, he is a victim of alcohol. lol