Russian approach to combat terrorism: Target terrorists' families

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Really interesting article about this proposed tactic in the New York Times today; Russia's apparently been quietly making use of it since Chechnya. The pros/cons of whether it breeds more terrorists than it captures is the main issue... if you dismiss the morality argument.

NY Times - Russia Shows What Happens When Terrorists’ Families Are Targeted

MOSCOW — Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, was widely condemned when he called for the United States to “take out the families” of terrorists.

His approach — even after he clarified that he was not talking about killing the relatives — was dismissed by many as immoral and unlawful. Yet, it is the very tactic that Russia has pursued for decades.

It is the signature, though officially unacknowledged, policy behind Moscow’s counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, and Russia’s actions in smashing a Muslim separatist rebellion in the Caucasus provide a laboratory for testing Mr. Trump’s ideas.

The family ties that bind in terrorist groups came into focus last week after the police in Brussels disclosed that two of the three suicide bombers in the attacks there were brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid el-Bakraoui. All told, analysts estimate that a third of the participants in terrorist acts are related to another attacker.

In the conflict that began in Chechnya and has since metastasized into a loosely organized Islamic rebellion throughout the Caucasus region, Russian security services routinely arrest, torture and kill relatives, rights groups say.

The Russian approach, enough to make supporters of waterboarding wince, has by some accounts been grimly effective. Abductions of family members unwound the rebel leadership in Chechnya, for example.

...

In the Russian view, the family is the thread that needs to be pulled to unravel the terrorist group.

“He should understand his relatives will be treated as accomplices,” Kirill V. Kabanov, a member of President Vladimir V. Putin’s human rights council, said of a potential suicide attacker.

“When a person leaves to become a terrorist, he can kill hundreds of innocents,” he said. “Those are the morals we are talking about. We should understand, the relatives must fight this first. If the relative, before the fact, reported it, he is not guilty. If he did not, he is guilty.”

By law, Russian security services have no authority to specifically target relatives. But the intelligence forces seldom let a detail like the lack of a legal basis interfere with their activities.

In Chechnya and neighboring Dagestan, they routinely burn or demolish the houses of people suspected of being insurgents or terrorists. Most strikingly, whole extended families are rounded up in high-profile cases, and are often held until the militant either gives up or is killed.

...

The most sweeping application of the tactic came during the pacification of Chechnya, after Mr. Putin engineered the recapture of the separatist territory early in his tenure.

Relatives were used as “hooks” to lure in militants. If the militant did not switch sides, the family member disappeared. Chechnya had about 3,000 to 5,000 unresolved disappearances from 2000 to 2005 or so. The policy, executed by the Chechen leader, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the scion of a prominent Chechen family that itself switched sides, broke the organized resistance.

The Russian security services have also manipulated relatives for various ends, such as to inadvertently pass poisoned food to suspected militants on the run.

The practice, not surprisingly, has spawned dozens of cases in the European Court of Human Rights and widespread criticism of tactics that, while seemingly effective in the short term, have deeply alienated extended families whose members bear grudges to this day.

“There is systematic abuse of the family members of insurgents,” Ekaterina Sokirianskaia, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, and an expert on the Caucasus, said in a telephone interview.

“There can be short-term results, but I wouldn’t call it success,” she said. “You can prevent some episodes of violence at the moment, but you are radicalizing whole communities.”

“When innocent Muslims are targeted for the expediency of security services, this legitimizes the jihadist cause,” she said.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
I'm all for going old-school on terrorists, but only a sociopath would want to deliberately target women and children.
 

Raizinman

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2007
2,350
72
91
meettomy.site
Taking out the family of the terrorist is a long and very common process in the middle east. It does tend to work. Families know if they have a rogue family member and can stop it if they want. If the family knows about it and does nothing, they are almost as guilty as the terrorist.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
What price should be paid to win a war?
This is a case of a moral exchange for what appears to be a genuine increase in peace and stability.
Which is less moral, allow unending conflict and terrorism, or being vicious and bloody and putting down the opposition? Bringing an end to the violence?
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
Damned if I can remember the saying, but it went a bit like:

"When any means is permitted to combat an evil, the former is indistinguishable from the latter."
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,325
28,583
136
Funnily enough, the people that tend to support these types of policies also believe the government is too oppressive as it is, and that some day soon they will be fighting that oppression like our forefathers. Assuming that day comes, suddenly they will be the "terrorists" and it will be open season on their families. They forget that the government already has the ability to label anybody a terrorist anytime they want.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,341
1,516
136
The Israeli's will demolish the house of terrorists family. It is a way to combat the policy that Hamas has of giving money to the family of a suicide bomber. Looks like the Russians take it to a new level.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Damned if I can remember the saying, but it went a bit like:

"When any means is permitted to combat an evil, the former is indistinguishable from the latter."

Combat an evil? Terrorist groups are organizations of people. Flesh and blood. They bleed, they need supplies. Victory can be defined as the cessation of their organization... or activities.

It's often defined as Good VS Evil, but ultimately it's one group trying to kill another. Should we be ashamed if we are the victors?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
If you dismiss the morality argument there is all sorts of atrocities we could commit to stop terrorism. The question is would we be any better then them if we did so?

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
If you dismiss the morality argument there is all sorts of atrocities we could commit to stop terrorism. The question is would we be any better then them if we did so?

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.

"How we win matters", yes... but it also matters if we allow a conflict to continue. Without decisive victory you're letting future generations fight the same battle. Allowing violence to persist might be considered immoral as well.

How do we balance these concepts? Have we struck the right balance?
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
I'm all for going old-school on terrorists, but only a sociopath would want to deliberately target women and children.

The innocent adult male family members are fair game though, right? Maybe it's time to start moving away from this idea that adult men are less worthy of protection than adult women.

It's like the recent terrorism against Christians in Pakistan. The terrorists said they only meant to target the men. It's some mix of thinking that only innocent men are worthy of punishment and that women aren't viewed as having enough personal independence to be responsible for anything, it's really just a bad statement for all adults. (There are legitimate reasons for children under some age to fall under categories like that though)
 
Last edited:

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
Combat an evil? Terrorist groups are organizations of people. Flesh and blood. They bleed, they need supplies. Victory can be defined as the cessation of their organization... or activities.

It's often defined as Good VS Evil, but ultimately it's one group trying to kill another. Should we be ashamed if we are the victors?

Depends on the methods.

As a hypothetical example:

An organization's goal is to catch rapists, and they do so by raping the rapists' family members, so as to make them reveal the location of the rapists.

Said organization is just as evil as those that they are trying to catch.


And yes. If you do evil, and are the victor as a result, you should be ashamed. And not only that, ya should be punished and brought to justice.

That isn't to say that, for example, evil people shouldn't be killed; they should. What shouldn't happen, is committing evil upon innocents to get at the evil person.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
In China, they'll find 10 members of their family and make them disappear. If they can't find 10, they'll find their close associates, friends, teachers, etc to make it 10. Most terrorists in China belong to a minority group. So they'll reduce the minority population and bring in more Han Chinese. Less minority population is less potential terrorists.

Also recently China has been holding family members of dissidents that live abroad to try to silence them.

https://news.yahoo.com/silence-critics-abroad-china-goes-families-home-154318087.html
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
I'm all for going old-school on terrorists, but only a sociopath would want to deliberately target women and children.

So male relatives are OK? I thought men and women were equal?

Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
"How we win matters", yes... but it also matters if we allow a conflict to continue. Without decisive victory you're letting future generations fight the same battle. Allowing violence to persist might be considered immoral as well.

How do we balance these concepts? Have we struck the right balance?

I completely agree. All I am pointing out is that it is useless to try to talk about a solution by saying 'if we disregard the morality argument'. The morality is precisely what we are talking about.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I'm all for going old-school on terrorists, but only a sociopath would want to deliberately target women and children.

We live in the era of equal rights. Woman have equal right to be the terrorist they dream of being, as well as it is equally okay to target and kill women. Us civilized people have evolved to treat all genders equally.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
So male relatives are OK? I thought men and women were equal?

Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?

That was implied. Obviously someone's wife and children aren't (necessarily) culpable for his actions.

Jesus, I wasn't trying to start a men's rights rant. :rolleyes:
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?

whoa, better be careful, with an opinion like that, the trumpsters might start calling you a communist ;)

#makeamericagreatatwarcrimesagain
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?

The whole point of the topic is Russia's investment in going beyond that.
Into morally reprehensible, vile, or even evil territory that potentially achieved the desired result of putting down a violent opposition.

If they are truly successful in acting this way. Are they wrong to use it to end violence?
As Americans we stamp our feet and claim moral high ground, but violence itself claims innocent lives. And our methods may be too weak to stop it.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
So male relatives are OK? I thought men and women were equal?

Rather than idiotic sentiment about women and children, how about, oh I don't know, only the actual criminals are guilty?

I would go further and say that those who indoctrinated them have also a share of the responsibility. It is the radical imams whose poison is indoctrinated into helpless children that is a fountain for the insanity of Islamist terror attacks.

With regards to Russia, it is a tricky ethical question.

On 11 December 1994, the first Chechen war began. It is worth remembering what preceded the outbreak of this bloody war that did so much to change the course of our nation’s history. The first and second Chechen wars murdered Russian democracy in its cradle, for when the cannons sing the people thirst for blood and opponents of government become traitors to the nation; elections lose their meaning and parliament ceases to be a place for discussion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/12/-sp-chechnya-russia-war-anniversary
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I think an angle that is most worrisome is that if we as a nation can justify murdering innocents to stop a foreign threat, then the only thing keeping us from not doing it at home is propaganda surrounding a new "domestic" threat. Once it is okay to torture a foreign radical to potentially stop a bombing, then we aren't far from torturing Americans who may know something about a bomb threat, murder, etc. The mental switch gets turned where if your morals allow torturing humans or murdering innocents at any level then it is easier to further justify those actions in the future as solutions to another problem.