[Ganeshas Rat]

This article seemed interesting to me. The author is Sergei Volkov, the Russian historian and publicist of Liberal-Conservative views, who specializes in study of different societies Elites. If something is non-understandable or has poor grammar: sorry! Not my native language.

The last events, I see, generated new tide of arguments about "international terrorism". Like there an organization exists, of people, who by some reason enjoy to conduct terroristic attacks (like pyromaniacs), and exactly that unites them and opposites to "good guys". (I've even seen instructions for people "how to recognize a terrorist", even though it is as difficult as, let's say, to recognize a tank driver or an artillerist in plain clothes, not speaking about that fact Breivik doesn't look like a leftie from "Red brigades", and the last one - like an Islamic shakhid). However, the essence of the modern situation is quite clear for majority of "international terrorism" conjurers (all the more, it is absolutely concrete), but they cannot talk about it because of notorious "political correctness", and that's why they must resort to those ridiculous abstractions.

It's funny, by the way, "political correctness" and "tolerance" are seemed like production and property of liberalism, while they are antagonistic to its idea: what can be a bigger insult of freedom of speech and thought itself than a prohibition to call things with their natural names and voice non-acceptance of non-acceptable things?

Such kind of prohibitions is an immanent part of ideocratic totalitarian regimes, actually, that's what the dear Soviet was and many European countries evolute to this as well.

In reality there are no any abstract terrorists, there are people of quite specific views, who by force of circumstances (without ability to use aviation, tanks etc) use exactly this method of confrontation. Because it isn't accepted to focus on targets they act for (they must admit problems that "must not exist"), the only remaining option is to focus on methods. And it seems very funny, because these methods in the cases of "rightful struggle of nations" do not evoke any objections. There in RF "The Day of Partisans and Undergrounders" exists, and this when they periodically must hunt and liquidate partisans and undergrounders in Northern Caucasus region.

The fact that they always and everywhere call as "terrorists" only people and groups, acting against their interests, but if they act in their interests, they are "fighters" ("for freedom", "against oppression" etc) - that (since we live in the conditions of "political correctness" and must talk using its language) is absolutely normal (if the very same ISIS after moving their activity to Caucasus will turn into "fighters", nobody will wonder). Of course it would be simpler just state, instead of nonsense about "international terrorism", that in 90's RF fought against Chechen separatism and to not be aggrieved so pathetically by Kiev's intention to call people revolting against Ukrainization as terrorists (yes, a state suppresses separatism inside and encourages in rival states, nobody acts in a different manner), but if it's not allowed, then it's not allowed.

Ok. But it is amusing that in the case of Syria-Iraq they talk about "terrorists" even when in the sense of methods there are no "partisans and undergrounders", and the fight for the idea uses regular tools, with cannons, tanks and more or less solid front line tens of thousands of people hold against regular armies, and the existing Caliphate is insistently called not a state (even unconditionally deserving elimination) but "a terroristic organization", while on the system level it's no different from other self-initiated states like Eritrea or South Sudan (all those owe their existence to some "organization").

Those who are called "international terrorists" are united not by a target to obligingly murder someone. That is about some idea that cannot be discussed, because it is unethical. People want to live by Shariat law, and they don't accept that secular states allow them confess their religion but force to live by laws far from Shariat. Even more, they want for others to live by Shariat too (what to do, if their faith is only right). If it's not possible to make others live by Shariat without murders, it will be more wise for those who don't like it, to find their position about the same idea, not pretending that it's adepts kill just because they like to kill.

After all, the degree of "radicalism" is a relative thing (removed from power in Egypt "Muslim brothers" were not more radical than the party of Erdogan, and what we call "radical Islam" is the state ideology of Saudi Arabia). No wonder, by poll in Saudi, 92% of population think that ISIS defends values of true Islam and fights for a just cause (except for numerous Saudi princes are absolutely unnecessary in Caliphate). It is usual to criticize destruction of Buddha statues in Afghanistan or ancient cities in Syria or Iraq, but in Iran (where, like not Russians but Soviets live in RF, not Persians but Shiites live) Behistun Inscription shared the same destiny and it is absolutely normal to conceive that writings in ancient languages are signs of Devil's claws.

The thing is not about "terrorism", but from one side in the intention to push the concrete position (if Islamists were majority, they would just vote "soft way", as they aren't, they do it "hard way"), and from the other one about readiness to agree with it or block it. In Europe many incline to the former way, as they agree to remove crosses from Churches, and to not sell non-halal food, soon they will forbid a cartoon about the pig Peppa, but that all isn't enough.

There is beautiful logic about that. To evade turmoils produced by bad guys, you must done the same by yourself, without turmoils (for example, I've heard not once: to evade the revolution powers must implement Revolution projects by itself). In other words, allowance for capitulations that defeat the purpose of the existence itself of this order, doesn't seem like something absurd or impossible. The logic is flawless: as war is the worst of all evils, you must surrender to evade that.

It will be very interesting to look how far they will go, those who are managed by this logic, and how long they who aren't will manage to hide head in the sand. There will always be a pleasure, of course, to look how sides, while talking about united "international terrorism", houndthe different kinds of "ordinary terrorism" at each other, but it starts to be boring.