108.211.153.190

If you desire more information regarding the Second Congress of the People's of Ichkeria and Dagestan (17 April 1999) or other aspects of the the conflict in Dagestan, then I would be able to help by drawing from data compiled from my extensive field work in Dagestan during this conflict.

Robert Bruce Ware

Dear Evgeny,

Thank you for your reply. Prior to my response, I must reiterate my two primary points, which have gone unaddressed in your technical reply:

1. Remove the outrageous and uninformed personal attack against me that is prominently featured in bold letters at the top of the Talk page for the Wiki page on "Russian Apartment Bombings." It is an outrage that this personal attack has been published for nearly one year, and it must be removed immediately.

I ask you how you would respond if you unexpectedly found a false and defamatory discussion of your name in bold letters at the head of a Wikipedia page?

2. Please restore some or all of the information that was removed from the "Russian Apartment Bombings" page and place on the Talk page for "War in Dagestan."

As to your technical points: I have taken no position on the question of whether or not RDX was used in the explosions. I simply have said that RDX was readily available in Dagestan at the time of the explosions, and that Dagestani (Salafist) Wahhabis certainly had detonation skills sufficient to achieve the devastation of the Russian apartment block bombings.

If I correctly understand your point, I find that conclusions are sometimes altered by investigative agencies the world over, and that the change in investigative conclusions by Russian authorities in regard to the use of RDX in the explosions is not necessarily indicative of conspiracy. It might simply indicate the discovery of further information, as in any investigation.

I am in current communication with David Satter on this topic. While I appreciate his research in this area, I do not think that the questions are settled by the conclusions of any single researcher.

I am convinced that the Buinaksk bombing was the work of Dagestani Wahhabis affiliated with the "Islamic Djammat" enclave comprising the villages of Karamachi, Chabanmachi, and Kadar. I am convinced that the explosives used in this blast were transported to Buinaksk from Chechnya. I also note the 1996 apartment block explosion in the Dagestani town of Kaspisk, the bombing of a parade in Kaspisk in 2002, and the scores of other explosions that have occurred throughout Dagestan in those years and all the years since.

I am convinced that Russian security services were involved in the Ryazan incident. I believe that there as an arc of copy-cat culpabilityfrom Dagestani Wahhabis in Buinaksk to federal security services in Ryazan.

I have noted a quotations from Shamil Basaev claiming that "the Dagestanis" were responsible for the 9 September bombing in Moscow in reprisal for the federal attack on Karamachi. I also have noted a quotation from Khattab vowing to spread "blasts" throughout Russia in reprisal for the attack on Karamachi, where his wife was residing at the time. I think that the Dagestani Wahhabis were responsible for the 9 September bombing. I am less certain about responsibility for subsequent bombings in Moscow and Volgadansk, but I note that it is circumstantially suspicious that the last of these detonated on September 16, which was the last day of fighting in Dagestan.

The Dagestani Wahhabis had the stongest motive for the bombings, as they were at the time under attack. The dates 31 August (Moscow Mall) to September 16 (Volgadansk) concide with the dates of the federal attack on Karamachi (29 August to 13 September) and the culmination of fighting in Dagestan (16 September).

I agree that if Dagestanis were responsible for one or more of the blasts, then the security services may have been responsible for some of the other blasts.

If you are interested, I can provide you with considerabe information on the War in Dagestan for the relevant Wikipedia page.

Again, I must reiterate that it is absolutely mandatory that you immediately remove the false and defamatory personal attack against me at the head of the Talk page for Russian Apartment Bombings.

Robert Bruce Ware

Thanks for your reply!

Yes, you have correctly understood my points, and their relation to the overall picture.

I'm an usual Wikipedia user, who is not responsible for its content. It was not I who have made the aforementioned changes, but other user who I despise. If you really want to know, you can browse the history for the aforementioned articles, and see who has made which edit -- and, I presume, bring it to the talk page of the particular user who has made those defamatory edits.

I totally understand your feelings, and if you want to sue Wikipedia for defamation, I would be only happy to see it go down, because it's a very toxic environment, and as far as political articles are concerned, it does more harm than good.

Other than that, you could try to contact some of Wikipedia administrators, who have the authority to make the changes you are demanding.

As you can see, there's little I can do as a regular Wikipedia user. Which is why I prefer to use other venues to express my point of view.

In particular, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I believe that the Ryazan incident has been a training exercise.

And oh, if you are communicating with David Satter, have you asked him about the source for his claim that FSB agents were detained in Ryazan sometime from September 23 to September 24, after the phone call to Moscow but before the TV announcement by Patrushev? I'm asking that, because I am certain that he has no source for that.

Because, you know, it's very likely that the FSB agents were not detained at all, as follows from the article by Arifdzhanov.

Document hippo (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of RDX in Russian apartment bombings

Dear Prof. Ware, I have noticed your recent edit at the talk page of the Russian apartment bombings article.

A curious point concerns the alleged use of RDX during the bombings. Initially it was claimed that traces of RDX were found at the sites of explosions. But in the end, the Russian authorities claimed that the terrorists used an improvised explosive mix, the description of which reveals that it was RDX-free.

David Satter views that as a proof of the conspiracy. I am aware of your counterargument that RDX could be obtained from the black market.

But I think, the truth is not entirely there.

There's no contradiction at all, if the terrorists have used RDX as a part of the explosive train, to detonate the major charge of their RDX-free explosive mix. Why would that make sense?

An important property of explosives is their critical detonation diameter. If an explosive charge is shaped as a cylinder, the detonation wave would propagate along its axis, only if the diameter of the cylinder exceeds the critical diameter. As it goes, the critical diameter is a property of a particular formulation of any given explosive.

A lot of improvised explosives, such as ANFO, cannot be detonated using common blasting caps (such as the No. 8 blasting caps) because of their large critical diameter. For example, the critical diameter is 150 mm for ANFO. While the diameter of No. 8 blasting caps is just 6.2 mm. These numbers cannot be compared directly, but it's known that No. 8 caps cannot be used to detonate explosives with a critical diameter in excess of 15-20 mm. Which is the reason why such blasting caps cannot be used to detonate ANFO.

On the other hand, RDX is a good military explosive, with a small critical diameter -- just a few millimeters (from less than 2 mm to 6 mm, depending on a particular formulation) -- which is easily detonated using common detonators.

So, it would make sense if the terrorists used the explosive train, which consisted of: (1) any common detonator, (2) a mid-size charge of RDX, on the order of 1 kg or less, (3) a main charge of the RDX-free explosive mix, with unlimited weight, but up to a couple of tons.

It has been reported (e.g. by Vidino) that the terrorists obtained professional training in mining, courtesy of Arab missionaries.

Apparently, it's the explosive train the terrorists were quite qualified to use. And if that's what they have used, that explains both the original findings of RDX traces at the sites of explosions, and the subsequent reports of the explosive mix used in the bombings, which was RDX-free.

Best regards, Evgeny a.k.a. Document hippo (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How can I get the personal attack removed?

RBW

The easy way -- I have removed it for you. However, I'm not an admin, so I cannot guarantee it's the final decision in any way.

I suggest you to watch that page, and if anyone reintroduces the attack, then, finally, you have someone responsible, so you could discuss the matter of the personal attack with him or her. -- Document hippo (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If I were any kind of an official, an apology on behalf of Wikipedia would be due. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia is a cesspool. I would be tempted to say that it's merely an ugly reflection of the media. And the people who edit it are victims of misinformation themselves. But they are also willing collaborators, in that they reinforce the preexisting negative stereotypes. It's like a dark hall of mirrors, but instead of Bloody Mary you get a nuclear war. -- Document hippo (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (108.211.153.190) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Document hippo (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of tips if you wish to make this planet a better place by editing Wikipedia. ;-)

As you probably know, peer-reviewed articles are among the best preferred reliable sources to be used in Wikipedia. Such is your 2005 article "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts" in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. If you use that article as a reference to make any point in the article on the Russian Apartment Bombings, it will be one of the few most reliable sources in that article. Use that to your advantage.

Another tip — one Wikipedia user, a proponent of the conspiracy theory, likes to cite an argument that the preferred sources for Wikipedia are secondary sources. Which is why the article on the Russian apartment bombings should preferably be based on books such as the one by David Satter. However, that is BS. And here is why. The source is a secondary source only if it cites primary sources such as newspapers, journals, etc. If the author makes an original claim, however, that's a primary source. More often than not, David Satter doesn't cite his sources. Which is why his books are mostly primary sources. With dubious reliability. That might seem obvious, but if you know that, you don't need to waste your time to debate arguments like that.

Document hippo (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---