More like this
Putin vows to ‘destroy’ rebels behind metro blasts
Deadly attacks in Moscow seen as direct challenge to Vladimir Putin’s authority
Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin cut short a visit to Siberia yesterday to return to Moscow where he vowed to "destroy" the terrorists behind the two suicide bomb attacks on the capital's metro system, which left 38 dead and eight others critically injured.
There has still been no claim of responsibility for the attacks, but there is little doubt in Moscow that Islamist rebels from Chechnya are behind the atrocity. The First Post briefing on the Moscow bombings details how separatist leader Doku Umarov said only last month: "The zone of military operations will be extended to the territory of Russia... the war is coming to their cities."
The two bombers were caught by CCTV cameras boarding the metro at Yugo-Zapadnaya station, helped onto the train by two other women. All four appeared to be aged between 18 and 20 and two of them were clearly of Slavic appearance.
The first bomber blew herself up at Lubyanka metro station at 7.56am. She detonated an explosives belt round her waist, scattering bolts and small iron rods. The second woman bomber set off her explosive belt 41 minutes later at Park Kultury station.
While the first station was significant - it is situated directly under the headquarters of the FSB intelligence agency, successor to the KGB - the second target appeared to have no symbolic significance. This has led to speculation that the second bomb was supposed to have been detonated at the Oktyabrskaya station, next to the interior ministry.
Jonathan Eyal, of London's Royal United Services Institute, told Reuters yesterday said the killings should be seen as a personal challenge to Putin's authority. "This is a direct affront to Vladimir Putin, whose entire rise to power was built on his pledge to crush the enemies of Russia... It's an affront to his muscular image." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Stephen, I'm pretty sure you won't hear muslim clerics denounce terrorism on cnn or fox, but at my masjid I hear it all the time. I also say it a lot, to everyone who asks. And so do most of the muslims I know. I'm sure it's a similar situation everywhere. If you re-read my post,(try the first sentence) you will notice that I stated that Islam condemns that kind of violence. I didn't say all religions are dangerous nor did I say any specific religion is dangerous. You should read ALL that you wish to comment on (remember context) It's people who are dangerous. Do you want to ban people??
Eric, You stated what I believe - all religions are dangerous. From paedophile priests to islam suicide bombers - they do whatever they want and use their religion as some kind of authorisation for it.
You said - "The problem a lot of you people seem to have with Islam is that it teaches that people have a right to fight oppression" so are we to assume it teaches that cowardly bombings of women, children and pensioners on trains, buses and in towns is ok as long as it's in the name of Islam?
If the answer is yes then it deserves all of the western (and russian) backlash it gets, if the answer is no - then I look forward to seeing a robust criticism from every muslim of all bombing and terrorist activities.
I won't hold my breath.
@ Al Hill... There is no excuse for killing innocent people, actually Islam strictly forbids it. It's too bad America, Russia, England et al wouldn't adopt Islamic principals when they prosecute their wars of empire but I don't think they ever will. And that is what causes the problem. These nations walk all over the rights of locals, install puppet regimes and commit or allow to be committed, all sorts of injustice while claiming to do good. Unfortunately, the victims of this imperialism are left feeling hopeless and that hopelessness combined with rage leads a very few of them to desperate measures. If someone offers them an outlet for both rage and hopelessness why wouldn't they take it. And if the person offering the outlet claims it is based on some theology or doctrine, that doesn't make it so.
This has as much to do with Islam as the Viet Nam war had to do with Christianity i.e. nothing.
The problem a lot of you people seem to have with islam is that it teaches that people have a right to fight oppression, and you also confuse the actions of some people who may be muslims with the teachings of islam. That would be the same as me saying that Christianity is dangerous because of the alleged plans of the cult in the U.S. midwest recently to kill police officers. They were apparently Christians but do they represent Christianity?
There are going to many more incidents such as this before most heads of state will begin to come to terms with the violent dimension that Islam will utilize to assert it's theocracy and ideology wherever it is present, and there will be no appeasement that will deter it. . . It must be dealt head on and defeated, and the world must come to terms that what it has in its presence is the geo-political power struggle for total ideological domination by Islam.