Subject: Explosions in the subway in Moscow March 29, 2010
Cain was the first murderer, and at the same time committed fratricide. In Scripture, there are no mistakes. Terrorism is organized fratricide, especially in historically multiethnic Russia. Any polarity of opinion, any difference in cultures, is no excuse. Apart from kinship and common parents, Adam and Eve, were there many similarities between Cain and Abel? Neither by character nor in temperament, nor, finally, by occupation they were similar: one tilled the land, the other tended sheep. After the murder, God called out to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" "I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?" Replied the man who had committed fratricide. He showed not a word of remorse, no tears. He showed only sly fear in return; only wanting to bury his conscience as deep as possible. Then the Lord said, "What did you do? The voice of thy brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.... When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you, and you shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth." The destiny of every murderer to this day is exile and the practical inability to return to normal life.
But at first glance Cain’s answer was strange, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Whoever finds me will kill me. "For the first time in the example of Cain, a human being felt the abyss of the sin of killing a man like himself, because before that time the first people did not know such a terrible crime. Cain, crushed inside, feels a terrible, insatiable emptiness. He does not properly understand but only feels some torn unity, a thin but unshakable bond between people. However, his fear and confusion did not pour into repentance, but only in fear for himself. Yes, exile is terrible, but even worse, now anyone could kill him. But there was not yet the law of the death penalty for killers, only later God will say to Noah, "Whoever sheds a man's blood, his blood will be shed by the hand of man." So why is Cain so afraid? Here we come to the innermost, most sacred and important point, which would be said centuries later in the New Testament: "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul, ye that work iniquity," if it wants to or not, if it is overtaken by the law on earth or not. For there was no law of God, nor from man that had yet come into the world, but Cain himself in his heart felt the justice of his sentence, realizing that from now on anyone can kill him. The Lord God made a mark on Cain so that anyone finding him should not kill him. The sign was so terrible that no one dared not only to communicate with him, but also even to approach him. So mankind was taught a clear lesson in how vile Cain’s act was.
But with time, and especially after the death of Cain, the lesson has been gradually forgotten ... Moreover, not only envy, personal enmity, and jealousy began to serve as the cause of murder. A new form of organized murder arrived, cold-blooded, without any affectation, at least on the part of its organizers, whose name is terrorism. From ancient times to modern times terrorism has acted for clients in political assassinations. Terrorism on Russian soil was seen in this guise in the second half of the nineteenth century. Speaking at the State Duma in connection with the murder of Stolypin, the leader of the Octoberist party, Gutchkoff said: "The generation to which I belong, was born under the bullets of Karakozov. In the 1870-1880's a bloody and terrible wave of terror swept over Russia, taking with it that the monarch, whom we ... eulogized as the Liberator Tsar. What kind of funeral feast did the terror celebrate over our poor homeland ...?”
The emergence of terrorism in Russia did not surprise anyone in Europe, where it not only flourished, but got a theoretical justification. As in the case of Marxism, "the science of terrorism" came to Russia from Germany, thanks to the "works" of Heinzen and Most. "The philosophy of the bomb" was picked up by Bakunin, and later by Morozov, who argued that “the victory of the "terrorist movement" would be inevitable if the future terrorist struggle became an entity not a separate group, but the idea cannot be destroyed like a person."
One of the modern terrorism researchers wrote: "The organization and the success of the terrorist struggles of the Russian revolutionaries have made them a model for terrorists in many parts of the globe. For example, in India, terrorism is called the "Russian method". I must say that even by careful selection of the victims, always pursuing political goals, the Russian terrorists hits were not always of an accurate character. The bombs exploded in the city streets, and there were a lot of innocent victims in the history of Russian terror, but ordinary people from the street were never the targets. Of course, you can exclaim: "The morals of the time!" But really what sort of morals can one expect from terrorists?
The American historian Hardman wrote at this time: "If the terror fails to cause a response in circles outside of those to whom it is directly addressed, it will mean that it is useless as a tool of social conflict. The logic of terrorist activities cannot be fully understood without an adequate assessment of the exponential nature of the terrorist act." At some point, modern terrorism, without giving up the principle of the killing of political figures, chose for themselves as a target for destruction, any innocent people and buildings, as symbols, designed for dramatic effect. An attack on a well-guarded person is much more dangerous and always costly for the organizers of terror. For example, the murder of Tsar Alexander II on 1st March 1881 led to the complete defeat of the "Narodnaya Volya Organization" and completely discredited the organization in society. On the contrary, the choice of a large number of innocent victims meets all the requirements of the theory of terror: to discredit those in power, to sow fear and insecurity, and most importantly - to cause widespread public reaction .Recent worldwide terrorism is more and more based on the radical sectarian ideas of "faith" and "nation." As rightly noted by the newspaper "New York Times", it made a turn towards militant Islam, although in the mid-1990s, this component was absent in the original Chechen rebellion." Today, the idea of an Islamic Emirate in the Caucasus is a banner of extremism that has plagued not just the separatist goals, but it acts, one would say, on a "global" scale.
According to Stolypin’s biographer, Sidorovnina, , Russia has always "cherished its good relations with the Muslim population of the State which is zealously associated with military service, distinguished for its bravery in military campaigns, and at the same time refrained from participating in the Time of Troubles, the uprisings, and the revolutionary movement." It is enough to say that the personal escort and security for the Russian Tsar included Circassians, Crimean Tatars, and the Muslim Caucasian Native Mountain Division. Stolypin himself astutely observed that "for the Christian people the encounter with the Muslim world marks not a religious struggle, but a struggle over state and culture." That is why the prime minister was very concerned about attempts to impose a radical propaganda among Russian Muslims, and saw in it a malicious purpose - to break up Russia as a single entity.
Today, a new generation of terrorists is working actively in the information field, using the latest technology. I can give you a typical passage from the American magazine “Foreign Policy”, which describes the propaganda actions of the recently liquidated Said Buryatsky. “Buryatsky’s target audience was a young educated urban youth in the territories of the former Soviet Union with a strong Muslim influence. And he got through to them, spreading his teachings through a network, and his writings via ringtones for cell phones. His DVD is sold in kiosks near mosques in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. His recruiting messages were sometimes so successful that young Kazakhs, left their homeland, traveling to the far North Caucasus, there to fight and die in armed clashes with the Russian authorities. During the court proceedings in Kazakhstan this year, angry parents of three young men convicted of trying to break into the North Caucasus to join the jihad were shouting when their children were taken out of the courtroom in custody: "Why did the authorities allow Said Buryatsky freely to come to Kazakhstan? Why are his speeches freely distributed here? “In fact, why not? And why don’t not only the parents but also the whole of Russia ask this question to its partners in the CIS?
Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that the North Caucasus has been seriously hit hard by the economic crisis. In some republics the sharp decline in production has aggravated the already difficult picture. Shortly before the assassination attempt on the President of Ingushetia Yunus-Bek Yevkurov said that more than half of the working population in Ingushetia is unemployed. It is not difficult to imagine what kind of fertile soil in this situation the "savvy" propagandists of jihad find themselves.
The Imam of the Moscow Memorial mosque, Shamil Alyautdinov made a personal appeal to the citizens about the tragic events in the subway stations of "Park Kultury" and "Lubyanka": "The enlightened part of society, I believe, have long understood that modern terrorism and religion (whether Christianity, Islam or Judaism) are two different and incompatible things. " He also wished for prudence and foresight of media workers and asked them not to foment ethnic strife and mutual dislike. And one can only agree with both of them. The leaders of Russian Muslims have always carried out the distinction between Islam and those who pervert it to manipulate the actions and thoughts of people. But one can say that some time ago, "Russian street" outrage at the actions of the "Narodnya Volya Organization", put an end to their sedition, and not by some kind of pogroms but by an extreme degree of public rejection and indignation, and the "Islamic street" is capable, I am convinced, of repeating the same historical experience.
After yet another assassination attempt on Alexander II, a year before his assassination, when according to the words of Prince Meshchersky, "a dynamite explosion in the Winter Palace was accompanied by an explosion of indignation and horror, not only in St. Petersburg, but in all of Russia." A high level ministerial meeting was held under the chairmanship of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich in the presence of the heir to the throne. “The ministerial meeting with its back pressed against the wall with the task imposed on it by the Tsar, requested that the meeting devoted itself to discussing various actions proposed by the ministers and had the character to strengthen supervision, protection, and demonstrations of power. Unfortunately, as the skeptics quite rightly said at the time, they did not promise anything but produced more correspondence and legal wrangling between different departments ... The Crown Prince finally took the floor and said that he "did not expect much success from the actions proposed, as he sees that the main evil ... is not the lack of actions, of which many exist, but in the fragmentation of departments among themselves, in the absence of solidarity between them, and in the internal rifts between them ...
In his famous speech of 11th February 1909 concerning the government's measures to combat terrorism in Russia, Stolypin said: "Where there is an argument, there is a bomb, there is certainly a natural response to that - ruthless punishment." But in the same speech Stolypin underlined that all police and law enforcement measures, are not an end in themselves but a means to combat this evil...
"And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, and surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man... “Today’s Cain-murderers walk indistinguishable in the crowd, and they do not bear the sign of the curse. But the word that man is the image of God, suggesting that the mark of Cain was printed not only as fratricide, but also as the slayer of God, who when the time comes, will shout along with the crowd, "Crucify him! Crucify Him! “He who makes attempt" on God" makes attempt" on love, because" God is love "(Book of John). And part of this love is in every man. This is His image. The one who causes others to kill takes the satanic plan for the destruction of love, the last thing that still connects people, often unconsciously to themselves.
Only once did God give a human killer a mark, for making attempt on Love, "flicking" his soul inside out. The mark of Cain was not a stamp put on his brow, but a terrible image, as a mirror, put in the deepest most bowels of his heart. And the whole world shuddered.
The Scriptures tell us in detail about each of the sons of Adam, and even his grandchildren, along with the exact number of years they lived on Earth. However, the Book of Books does not say a word about Cain’s death. I can understand the transition of the soul from life to death and then back to life, but the transition from the death of the soul on earth to eternal death remains a mystery...