Horror and hysteria continued. posted by Richard Seymour

There have been a number of responses to my last post which lead me to believe that it has been disastrously misunderstood, and that this is at least partially my own fault. So, let me set a few things straight.

Disillusioned Kid , for instance, suggests that I miss a very important point:

The consequences of killing somebody from miles away and at six feet are little different, nonetheless there is something particularly horrific about the latter. To be able to look into the eyes of a child and still be able to kill them is nothing short of barbaric. If one factors in the fact that the victims were children, presumably a deliberate choice, who were entirely incapable of defending themselves, I don't think that expressions of horror are misplaced, which takes nothing away from the brutality and immorality, not to mention illegality of Russian policy in Chechnya.

As it happens, I don't think the expressions of horror are misplaced either. Anyone who reads my blog regularly, however, will know that I don't care to emote in public about these things because a) it is obvious, b) any moral lessons that one can learn from such an episode are banal ('never kill children, don't make them drink their own urine, don't starve them', all of which basically amounts to saying 'don't do sadistic, monstrous things'), and c) I tend to suspect people who do point out the obvious in this way, as I think it points to a kind of narcissism (advertising one's morality, flaunting outrage etc). Proof of a) that entails b) and c) is that I have yet to meet anyone who was not literally moved to tears by the reports, and especially the images of what took place.

Consequently, I adhered firmly to the hard political point that Russian behaviour is nothing to write home about either. Now, it is true that bombing a city from a great height doesn't connote the great emotional involvement, perhaps the obscene enjoyment that is involved when degrading and killing children up close. There is a sense of penetration, infestation and shame that you get while reading about the latter that doesn't usually come from hearing about the bombing of a city. On the other hand, as I've already suggested, Russian troops do rape and kill face to face with their victims. They also devised some nice ways to kill children, such as bombs disguised as toys (an old trick they learned while invading Afghanistan ). So, once again, we are left to explain why that isn't also all over the front pages, why there aren't howls of outrage about it.

It isn't, as I say, that I consider outrage and shame over the seige inappropriate; it is, as Christopher Hitchens once observed "a mammalian reaction" - it is just that such sentiments can't escape the charge of hypocrisy. Further, when I referred to hysteria, I was discussing the extent to which horror had transformed itself into credulous acceptance of Russian propaganda. Hence, "the Russians are thousands of times more humane than these animals" etc. From what I have been told, much more violent views were heard on the talk radio shows last night, usually involving some dark, insinuating comments about "all these bloody Muslims".

An e-mailer wrote to say in this connection that other oppressed groups have not reacted with this kind of viciousness (Guatemalans, East Timorese) and that it must have taken something more than Russian oppression to make these people behave in this way, to which I can only reply that we are once again in the territory of the obvious. Moreover, it is a non-sequitur - I did not suggest or imply that these actions were a reasonable response to Russian terror. My correspondent also suggests that with regard to the presence of the world's media in Beslan and their notable absence in Grozny, thus guaranteeing an obscene public spectacle, "these butchers were counting on it."

That doesn't quite meet my point, but if they were counting on it, isn't it awfully nice of us to cooperate?