Remember that op-ed in the NYT about how the Real Victims of the Bomb Brothers were Chechen refugees? The brother of Paul Klebnikov, the Forbes man who reported on the late Marc Rich and numerous other examples of corruption in Russia until his assassination in 2004, wrote in to protest:
To the Editor:
Oliver Bullough suggests that the radicalization of the Boston Marathon bombers and other people of Chechen origin is due to displacement and oppression. This reasoning may be applied to any number of violent extremists — from I.R.A. terrorists who fought to liberate Ireland, to Palestinian suicide bombers in the occupied territories.
As someone whose brother was murdered by Chechen hit men, I find such explanations abhorrent.
To rationalize terrorism is to invite more of it.
PETER KLEBNIKOV
New York, April 20, 2013
PETER KLEBNIKOV
ReplyDeleteNew York, April 20, 2013
4/20 - coincidence?
They're going to charge the younger surviving Checheny-acting Chechen with potential death penalty, but the U.S. Atty for Boston is making contradictory statements. I've been reading gossip that the Feds might want to trade out the death penalty for info from Djoker Unchained, though I don't understand what info he could give them that I can't give them for free: Chechens are unstable violent dangerous Muslim whackjobs, but without ICBMs, they can't hurt us if you don't let them in our country.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to make light of his loss, but....could you ask for a better example of, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?
ReplyDeleteNo, this sounds more like sheer murder-for-pay criminality. Klebnikov made lots of powerful and rich enemies.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI meant the way he starts by saying some violent extremists might have been forced into it by oppression, but definitely not the type who killed his brother. I'm guessing someone whose brother was killed by the IRA or PLO would see it just the other way around.
Will 'child molesters' be banned by media too? It is soooo hateful. Will they be called 'child lovers'?
ReplyDeleteI mean if 'illegal alien' is wrong...
Hey, Steve, whatever happened about that interviewee the FBI shot dead - was it the FBI? - in Florida, the chap who had alleged connections to the alleged terrorist Chechen brothers?
ReplyDeleteAll seems to have gone quiet. Is it possible that the Law Enforcement people involved are more plausible suspects for murder in Florida than poor old Zimmerman, or has evidence come to light that exonerates them?
Perhaps, this is partly why the globalist left is eager to allow massive immigration into the West. If non-whites become a significant voting block in places like US and Europe, the Right is stuck once again in the Cold War conundrum. Again, it has to appeal to non-whites, and we hear this over and over in the US. As US becomes less white and more brown-ized, we are told that white cons MUST appeal to browns and yellows or face political death. The Third World is now INSIDE THE WEST AND HAVE ELECTORAL POWER. The new cold war is not between West and Russia with third world as the prize. It is within the West between whites and Jews(and their duped white running dogs) with the growing number of non-whites as the electoral prize.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Cold War was on, there was pressure on the Right to be less 'racist' even though US was overwhelmingly white. US, in order to maintain global domination and fend off Soviet threat, had to show the world that America was a 'social justice' nation. But without such global threats from communism, whites don't have to worry about such stuff anymore. But if white nations fill up with non-whites, the issue of pandering-to-non-whites becomes central once again.
Will 'child molesters' be banned by media too? It is soooo hateful. Will they be called 'child lovers'?
ReplyDeleteDon't give them ideas.
Gubbler said: Without USSR to stoke the hatred of the Third World against the West, the West could be more insular and 'isolationist'. White folks could begin to look into its own interests.
ReplyDeleteHunsdon said: Beautiful theory. If only it had worked out like that. Today, not a sparrow falls but that US vital strategic national interests are involved.
Cail Corishev said:
ReplyDelete"I meant the way he starts by saying some violent extremists might have been forced into it by oppression, but definitely not the type who killed his brother. I'm guessing someone whose brother was killed by the IRA or PLO would see it just the other way around."
But that's not what he's saying at all. He says such reasoning may be applied in all those cases, but that he finds such explanations abhorrent. He's quite clear about it.
Slumber_j,
ReplyDeleteOn second look, I think you're right. I was reading too much into "may be applied." Mea culpa.
"Beautiful theory. If only it had worked out like that. Today, not a sparrow falls but that US vital strategic national interests are involved."
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the elites feared it might work out that way and forced measures that would prevent it from happening.
gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...
ReplyDeleteWas the end of the Cold War a good thing or bad thing for the Right?
The good thing was the defeat and discrediting of radical leftism, but as libs and lefties control the media, there isn't much remembrance of communist horrors."
Where have you been the last twenty years? Radical leftism has been neither defeated nor discredited.
"Where have you been the last twenty years? Radical leftism has been neither defeated nor discredited."
ReplyDeleteRadical leftism would be communism or Marxism or classic anarchism. It's been thoroughly defeated.
It's gone in Russia. It's gone in China.
Yes, there are radicals in media and academia, but they are snugly part of the globalist capitalist order. They are NOT pushing communism or anarchism. Do you really think all those rich Jews and homos want the rabble to drag them down? Do you really think they want their wealth and privilege taken away from them by new NKVD or Red Guards?
They may be radical globalists, radical decadents, radical anti-whites, radical anti-normatives, etc, but they are NOT radical leftists. Leftism was egalitarian and for The People.
New 'leftism' is for the globalist neo-aristocratic elites. They still use the same tropes about 'equality' and 'social justice', but just look at urban gentry in NY and Chicago and Seattle and San Fran. It's all about privilege and vanity, material and moral.
Looks more pink and green(cash green)than red and commie to me.
Conservatives were all for rich getting richer and rise of urban yuppies. Well, the rich who got richer and urban yuppies decided to go with Obama and Democrats who are hipper than Creationist-associated GOP.
Globalists live Ayn-Randian lives but put on Che Guevara airs. Don't be fooled.
Just look at that punk steven soderbergh. he raked in gazillions with the shitty Ocean 11 movie but he's lecturing people about what is 'cinema' and what is entertainment. He should shut up.
Chechies gonna chech.
ReplyDelete