Russian 9/11

There could only be one logical outcome to the carnage in Russia. No one, not even an evil terrorist, could imagine that holding children hostage, not allowing them food or water and threatening to kill them, much less going through with the act, could provoke any other outcome than the one voiced by Vladimir Putin:

Russians must mobilise for a “brutal, all-out war'."

I suppose it's possible that this is the reaction the Chechens sought. Sure, they SAY they want the Russians out of Chechnya, but maybe provoking all out war could...could what?

This is the Russian 9/11, and it has as many unanswered questions. Here are a few.

This meticulously planned action, requiring military precision, (not to mention military fatigues, military vehicles and military weapons) was missing one thing: demands.

The only reference I've seen is to generic demands for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya. And it is unclear to me if this was an actual demand, or simply what the press assumed these folks wanted. In any event, this is a demand which could not conceivably be fulfilled in the small amount of time it takes for small children to die from dehydration. You have heard by now, I assume, that the hostage takers did not allow the children water to drink, much less food. Either the demands have been kept secret or no serious demands were made.

Secondly, according to this article and others, there were so many weapons and explosives on the school grounds, they could not possibly have been brought in during the assault, but had to have been planted earlier. The theory is that the terrorists disguised themselves as workmen and planted explosives all over the school and stashed weapons.

" Another official said the militants has (sic) posed as builders in July, and snuck in bombs, mines, rocket launchers and other weapons, disguised as construction material."

Somehow the real construction workers didn't notice enough weapons to supply a small army, even though they'd been there for over a month.

Here is the main question I have. The place is wired with explosives. No realistic demands were issued. Therefore, it was their intention to kill all inside. So where is the need for an assault? Why not just set off the explosives?

I suppose it doesn't hurt the Russian case that they now allegedly have bodies of several "Arab terrorists" among the dead. Better than an indestructible passport, I suppose. It also doesn't hurt that, according to the hostages, the kidnappers spoke in a Chechen accent. This would be a slam dunk case. No need for any pesky commissions to look into this one.

Then we have this from CNN. The man who was captured under as-yet unrevealed circumstances pleaded:

"Of course I pitied the children, I swear to Allah. I have children myself. I didn't shoot. I swear to Allah," he said. "I don't want to die. I swear to Allah, I want to live."

Now suppose, just for a moment, that this man was actually one of the hostage takers. Their plan was to plant explosives on the grounds and strap explosives onto themselves, round up hundreds of children...and he was thinking no children would be killed? Does this even SOUND like the words of a terrorist so heartless he could shoot children in cold blood? I realize that we certainly don't have reason to believe someone who would have done such a thing (if indeed he was even involved), but this is clearly not the rhetoric I'd expect.


Then we have the missing militants. Evidently, 13 of them managed to escape what I would assume was a rather heavily encircled building. Here's one account:

"At least 13 militants are suspected to have fled the school after the standoff was put to an end when a roof fell in the building where hundreds of hostages were held. They have managed to escape south of the town, while the rest of twenty-some terrorist is reportedly trying to mix with the adult hostages and thus escape capture." article

Then I heard all 26 (down from a number in the thirties) were killed. Then CNN tells us one militant was captured, but evidently not the missing 13. This report says all but two of the militants were killed in the building. Actually, every report has a different story.

I can understand some confusion, but either 13 militants escaped and were pursued throughout the neighboring village, or they didn't. Either those militants were later captured or got away. However, it is unlikely that they RETURNED TO THE SCHOOL, which is the only explanation I'm left with. That, or the security forces were accidentally pursuing freed hostages running for their lives. Seems like that would have sorted itself out rather quickly, however.

There is definitely something wrong with this horrifying story. With preplanted explosives, soulless killers able to shoot kids point blank, no real exit strategy and differing accounts of a higher number of perpetrators with some escaping, this all has an eerie similarity to Columbine. There too, initial reports said there were far too many explosives in the building to have been brought in by the gunmen. There, too, initial reports had the number of gunmen much higher. There, too, were reports of some "getting away" (though in that case, getting away appeared to be under police custody.) And there too, were young people so mentally disturbed, that such horrendous violence was as easy as playing DOOM.

I don't know what to make of this. I haven't seen the comparisons yet, even on the more conspiratorial sites, but they will come, probably from people who know much more about Columbine than I do. Just in time, too, comes Dave McGowan's book with the theory that some of our more famous serial killers were "programmed" to commit such crimes which actually had deeper political motives. You can check his book out here. I haven't gotten it yet, but the timing is certainly right.

I guess a quick word about programmed killers is in order. I can't, and neither can Dave, prove that governments can and do program people to commit such crimes. But what is undeniable is that they, or at least the CIA, were interested in such possibilities. One technique might involve inducing what used to be called "multiple personality disorder" and what is now called Dissociative Identity Disorder. This disorder is almost always precipitated by severe abuse. One "personality" might have no knowledge of what another is up to. You see why spy guys might like such creations. The paper trail that they were at least interested in such ideas is pretty solid, and that alone is saying something pretty evil.

Personally, that these guys might have been programmed to commit such acts is satisfying to me at the moment, because it is the MOST OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO I CAN COME UP WITH. Yep, little Manchurian candidates running around is the BEST CASE scenario.

It might also explain the very perplexing words of our lone militant gunman. Or at least the lone gunman captured. Not the words of a martyr seeking his virgins in heaven (I use the stereotype here intentionally). Not the strength of will one would expect from someone able to strap on explosions and tell children to drink their own urine if their thirsty. If I'm right, this guy won't live long.

God we live in awful times.