russian school incident...

[M Lambert]

ok just spotted it on AOL - Some terrorists have taken a school using rifles and suicide bomb belts. 200 children and parents captured, 50 escaped after hiding. The demands are not public yet. No actual reason suggested, it was the first day of school there, when a number of parents accompanied the kids to class.

Why do you think its done? :confused:

[Earlam]

ok just spotted it on AOL - Some terrorists have taken a school using rifles and suicide bomb belts. 200 children and parents captured, 50 escaped after hiding. The demands are not public yet. No actual reason suggested, it was the first day of school there, when a number of parents accompanied the kids to class.

Why do you think its done? :confused:

I saw it on CNN and CBC.
The terrorists want a bunch of prisoners the Russians took in Chechnya over the last year or so released. If not, they promise to kill 50 children for every fighter they've lost fighting in Chechnya (An obvious exaggeration, as even if they had the capability, Russia might run out of kids at 50-1).
If their demands aren't met, they say they'll blow up the school (and the hostages in it).


Why?
I think it must have something to do with the Russian military occupying their country, having killed a huge amount of their countrymen (that's men, women, and children), and there being no end in sight.
I would assume they've been a bit desensitized. Having more than likely seen dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of dead Chechen children (killed by Russians or situations created by Russians), what would a few Russian (enemy) children mean to them? If it were me, not a heck of a lot.

What's not mentioned in these reports is that Chechen terrorism only began after Putin moved Russian forces back into Chechnya.
I don't like their methods, but nobody seems to care about them either way. If they're labelled as terrorists, at least they're in the news. If they just continue to die by the hundreds in their own country, nobody will ever know or care.
If I were a Chechen, I would probably be doing the same thing (or planting bombs in a theatre, or at the very least shooting at Russian troops in my occupied homeland).

[Earlam]

Update.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/03/russia_school040903.html

[M Lambert]

they should have accepted american help, russian commando's are not trained in hostage rescue as well as the american and british SF

[mbabenko]

All right guys, I'm Russian and I can tell you what I know.
- Why?
- Because they are Islamic terrorists who neither have means nor courage to fight like men and attack anyone else but children.
- Because they're not ashamed of killing children as it's perfectly justifiable by their religion and morality.
- Because they represent a minority in their own region and have lost numerous referendums.

Now one thing should be clear: RUSSIA WILL NOT GET OUT OF CHECHNIA. NEVER. The majority of population there are Russian subjects. Neither will Russia free the terrorists. Future terrorists may as well blow themselves up right away, THEY'LL GET NOTHING (and I'm not saying that because I'm angry, but because that's how Putin works and I approve it).

Now you may have as well heard that Russian kill their as you say countrymen. Here's how they work. Imagine you have a soldier marching towards you to blow your head off. If you have a gun, I think that even if you're not a soldier yourself, you wouldn't hesitate to do the same to him as fast as you can. Imagine now that he's covering himself up with a child. Would you fire? I don't know, but I sure as hell would. Would I feel bad afterwards? Hell no, I'd be rather happy to stay alive. But the media would say that I killed the child and they would kind of forget the soldier behind him.

Now about getting help from Americans, I hope it was a joke.

[M Lambert]

nope, i have seen many pieces of fact showing that american special forces are trained to deal with the hostage-rescue better than the russian commando's. True there would be a high level of pressure on the russians next time the americans may want something, as this is the way of politics, but atleast there probably wouldnt be 100 bodies in a burnt out gymnasium about now.

Today's performance by the Russian military was, and i do hope you realise this, a sham. I am not "bashing" at russians or anything, but the way this was dealt with was a sham.

a) there was no real plan there, the gunmen fired, the commando's attacked. Resulting in the escape of many of the "terrorists" (i'll explain why its in "" marks soon), and the detonation of a number of the suicide bombs.

b) the area was not correctly cordoned off, upon the attack beginning bystanders had rounds flying over their heads, this could of caused a huge catastrophe outside, as well as inside the school.

c) Normal Army Soldiers are not DESIGNED or TRAINED for this sort of operation, this is the job for "SAS" style soldiers.

d) Due to the speedy and what seems, poorly planned attack, the school basement has now become a stronghold for a number of the "terrorists".


ok now the reason i say "terrorists" in the marks, our view of terrorists is not theirs. They think of themselves as freedom fighters, so by labelling them terrorists we are simply condemning ourselves. They are people controlled by those with a political leaning, they are pawns in a political battle.

I will post a small snippet of a PM i sent someone on anothr forum, it is a full PM yet a small snippet of my thoughts, as in my mind when it comes to things like this i destrcuture all info i have and restructure it to make sense of it, thus allowing me to have a multitude of opinions, which are too many to post all here.

__________________________________________________ ________________

The attack - whatever its reasoning, was made on this school for one reason, the political power of using kids as hostages.

Children hostages allow alot of political swing, first, the risk of the children dieing is huge, and thus makes the government think twice about ordering special forces participation. Also if they were to (as they have) let children out, it begins the thinking "they may not be so bad, look they've let these kids out, they dont really want to hurt them, they just dont know how to put their views across without them being opressed". This breaks down the governmental stature and undermines them, thus must be avoided.

This attack happened the day after a suicide bomb detonation in moscow, so this attack must have been co-ordinated. Co-ordinatated by someone who doesn't care about the lives, and didnt give them an escape plan, just someone who gave them the view of martyrdom and armed them and sent them there.

The whole thing is politics, terrorism is just to undermine politics, violence is the ultimate form of power. Violence allows manipulation, thus allowing control, and if you have control you are "king".

War - ultimate goal is to gain political control, its why hearts and minds plays such a huge part, however turn hearts and minds into Control and Fear, that is terrorism.

However something i learned is what we see is not what they see, terrorism is not terrorism to the terrorists, look at it from those terrosists view, not the guy who planned it, the actual terrorists, they think its freedom fighting, and we are the terrorists.

thats a snippet of what i have been thinking of regards this, trust me when i say this sort of thing makes me deconstruct everything i know of the incident, and reconstruct it so i can understand. It's hell, but its worth understanding.





Memories to those hostages, and the freedom fighters, human nature forbids peace, to our destruction

__________________________________________________ ___________________


i await the full force of people attacking my view of them not as "terrorists" as im 99% certain its going to happen.

[mbabenko]

nope, i have seen many pieces of fact showing that american special forces are trained to deal with the hostage-rescue better than the russian commando's. True there would be a high level of pressure on the russians next time the americans may want something, as this is the way of politics, but atleast there probably wouldnt be 100 bodies in a burnt out gymnasium about now.
Today's performance by the Russian military was, and i do hope you realise this, a sham. I am not "bashing" at russians or anything, but the way this was dealt with was a sham.

a) there was no real plan there, the gunmen fired, the commando's attacked. Resulting in the escape of many of the "terrorists" (i'll explain why its in "" marks soon), and the detonation of a number of the suicide bombs.

b) the area was not correctly cordoned off, upon the attack beginning bystanders had rounds flying over their heads, this could of caused a huge catastrophe outside, as well as inside the school.

c) Normal Army Soldiers are not DESIGNED or TRAINED for this sort of operation, this is the job for "SAS" style soldiers.

d) Due to the speedy and what seems, poorly planned attack, the school basement has now become a stronghold for a number of the "terrorists".


ok now the reason i say "terrorists" in the marks, our view of terrorists is not theirs. They think of themselves as freedom fighters, so by labelling them terrorists we are simply condemning ourselves. They are people controlled by those with a political leaning, they are pawns in a political battle.

I will post a small snippet of a PM i sent someone on anothr forum, it is a full PM yet a small snippet of my thoughts, as in my mind when it comes to things like this i destrcuture all info i have and restructure it to make sense of it, thus allowing me to have a multitude of opinions, which are too many to post all here.

__________________________________________________ _______________


I'm sorry, BUT I have Russian TV channels and read Russian news and I can say that Russian performance was far from a sham. As you have pointed out, the events were RANDOM, so that nobody was really prepared. Even the all mighty American force wouldn't be able to do crap. I bet they'd be watching Sinefield/Drew Carry/some other crap over the cable. Don't believe me? Still think that Americans can quickly react during unexpected events? WHERE WERE THEY LOOKING DURING THE SEPT. 11 then? After such an embarrassing event, I think it's shamful to even mention them. Now I don't know what pieces of fact you may have seen, but I guess that you like watching the British/Pro American media, which I don't fully trust.

And yea about the basement, the attack was already over when you posted that, I hope you realize it. Those who didn't get their butt kicked by the army, got in even bigger crap from the locals.

Now about the terrorist thingy. I don't care how you call them, it doesn't change anything. Ok, let's not call them terrorists. Let's call them Cowardish People Who Instead of Attacking Military Kill Children (CPWIAMKC). Naaaah, terrorists sounds better, don't you think? If you steal a book and don't consider yourself a thief, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, you'll still get your butt kicked and so will they.


The attack - whatever its reasoning, was made on this school for one reason, the political power of using kids as hostages.
They knew that it wouldn't get anything. The attack had only one purpose: PUBLICITY.


Children hostages allow alot of political swing, first, the risk of the children dieing is huge, and thus makes the government think twice about ordering special forces participation. Also if they were to (as they have) let children out, it begins the thinking "they may not be so bad, look they've let these kids out, they dont really want to hurt them, they just dont know how to put their views across without them being opressed". This breaks down the governmental stature and undermines them, thus must be avoided.
Oh yea bravo... And then they think: "Heeeeeeeey, they've let some kids out, that's nice, maybe we can take our army out of Checheny and set free all their friends". They know as well as anybody else that
- Russian government will NEVER comply
- They'll try to shoot them as soon as they get a chance.


This attack happened the day after a suicide bomb detonation in moscow, so this attack must have been co-ordinated. Co-ordinatated by someone who doesn't care about the lives, and didnt give them an escape plan, just someone who gave them the view of martyrdom and armed them and sent them there.
There you go


However something i learned is what we see is not what they see, terrorism is not terrorism to the terrorists, look at it from those terrorists view, not the guy who planned it, the actual terrorists, they think its freedom fighting, and we are the terrorists.
Well Daaaaaaaaah. I said, it's because of their religion. They believe that they have rights on that land when in fact, they don't have rights on crap. You don't just come back from work, have a beer and say to yourself: "All right, there's nothing good on TV, so I think I'll just go blow up some school in Russia." Of course it's morally justifiable for THEM. And once again, that's because THEIR RELIGION ALLOWS THEM TO KILL CHILDREN.

[Lil Lightnin]

WHERE WERE THEY LOOKING DURING THE SEPT. 11 then?

That's not really a fair point at all. He was commenting on the actions taken by the Russian military to resolve the conflict, not prevent it in the first place. Nobody has a crystal ball which could've possibly told them the time and the place the 9/11 terrorist attacks would take place; or the hostage situation at the school for that matter. In my opinion the Americans did a very good job handling the aftermath of 9/11. As for the Russians, I believe it is too early to begin speculating as to the proper course of action that should've been, or could've been taken. As far as I understand, it wasn't necessarily unorganized, rather it was, like previously stated, a series of random, unexpected events that made the Russians appear to be caught off guard (which they quite posisbley were). I'm sure their mission could've been pulled off in a more organized fashion, but considering the situation and the resulting circumstances, I think we're hardly in a position to criticize.

[M Lambert]

there was no plan to attack that school, a statement from the Chief Security Advisor (if wrong title, sorry, cant get the window back up off AOL yet) said that there was no planned military action, they were still in talks.

Considering 250 dead and over 700 wounded, i think you are right to say it could have been pulled off in a much better way, and i think that seeing over 250 dead, from explosions set off BECAUSE the Army stormed the school, sorta shows we're on a good position to criticise.

OK maybe using americans would have brought the same circumstances, but those americans are practiced much more in this sort of affair, its not a deniable thing, its fact.

Now you have gunmen and women running round russia, they dont know what theyre doing, they didnt expect to be "left there" and they dont know how to get back, interesting really.

mbabenko your view of terrorist is not that of someone elses. I fully agree this action was of a terrorist nature, however as far as those people are conserned russia is a hostile invader in their country, and they have been taught to think of them as the enemy, all it takes is 1 charismatic leader to give them a gun, a bomb belt, and a plane ticket and ba-ba-boom you have youurself a "freedom fighter" on his way to "prove himself to his nation" whereas he's really going to die for someone who has a political view and no conscience.

[mbabenko]

Lightnin

That's not really a fair point at all. He was commenting on the actions taken by the Russian military to resolve the conflict, not prevent it in the first place. Nobody has a crystal ball which could've possibly told them the time and the place the 9/11 terrorist attacks would take place; or the hostage situation at the school for that matter. In my opinion the Americans did a very good job handling the aftermath of 9/11. As for the Russians, I believe it is too early to begin speculating as to the proper course of action that should've been, or could've been taken. As far as I understand, it wasn't necessarily unorganized, rather it was, like previously stated, a series of random, unexpected events that made the Russians appear to be caught off guard (which they quite posisbley were). I'm sure their mission could've been pulled off in a more organized fashion, but considering the situation and the resulting circumstances, I think we're hardly in a position to criticize.

And I believe they knew all bout 911 way before it happened and let it happen to have a pretext to attack Afghanistan (even though I'm not at all against the concept of attacking Afghanistan/Irak, for they were starting to become really annoying). And sure, let's blame it all on Russians. It's funny how you disagree about it being a sequence of random events and support Americans during the 911 where they could've obviously at least done more once it happened if not prevent it. So, we now know that RUSSIANS ARE UNPROFESSIONAL AND AMERCIANS ARE.... UNLUCKY!?! It smells Pro-American media here. Hey, not all they say on Fox is true. Ok, well now I can almost hear you say: "Yes, but you seem to be watching the pro-Russian media". WRONG. Before making up my mind on something I watch American, Quebec's and Russian news channels. The biggest difference is that Americans like to throw in a load of useless crap such as university professors describing how much Russia is in crap now and what could be done differently, so that an average American Joe would have a beer and say to himself: "Hey, Russians sure are dumb".

Lambert

there was no plan to attack that school, a statement from the Chief Security Advisor (if wrong title, sorry, cant get the window back up off AOL yet) said that there was no planned military action, they were still in talks.
No plan you say. All right, so on the 1st day of school they just show up there in the school with the machine guns, take over 1000 people hostage and it turns out that the school..... has already been mined? Interesting! Because I thought that it was one of a plannified sequence of attacks prepared by Shamil Basaev (the Chechen commander, yes the same one who took a hospital hostage in nineties) and guess how they got the dope? From Al-Quaida! Apparently it's even posted on their web site.


Considering 250 dead and over 700 wounded, i think you are right to say it could have been pulled off in a much better way, and I think that seeing over 250 dead, from explosions set off BECAUSE the Army stormed the school, sort of shows we're on a good position to criticize.
well considering that there was an explosion because dumb terrorists don't know how to use explosives (it doesn't take a university degree to become a terrorist you know), people started running and terrorists started shooting at them. HOW THE HELL COULD THE ARMY JUST STAND BY? They had to go in, except that THERE WAS NO PLAN. And even the all-mighty Americans couldn't elaborate a plan in case of a random explosion. Remember the 911. Dumb people were just standing by and watching wile others were jumping out of the windows. A couple of helicopters could've done it. You see how easy it is to critisize?


OK maybe using americans would have brought the same circumstances, but those americans are practiced much more in this sort of affair, its not a deniable thing, its fact.
Sure they are. They've even trained Ossama, the guy who financed those attacks. Why did they train him? To go to Afghanistan and get rid of Russians. Now they can take their help and shove it......


Now you have gunmen and women running round russia, they dont know what theyre doing, they didnt expect to be "left there" and they dont know how to get back, interesting really.
What are you talking about?


mbabenko your view of terrorist is not that of someone elses. I fully agree this action was of a terrorist nature, however as far as those people are conserned russia is a hostile invader in their country, and they have been taught to think of them as the enemy, all it takes is 1 charismatic leader to give them a gun, a bomb belt, and a plane ticket and ba-ba-boom you have youurself a "freedom fighter" on his way to "prove himself to his nation" whereas he's really going to die for someone who has a political view and no conscience.
No crap it's not anyone else's opinion! it's obviously mine! And wooooooooooooooooooow now. How is Russia a hostile invader of its own province? Is Canada a hostile invader of Quebec? And once again, I don't care how you call them or how they call themselves. That doesn't make them any better. They are obviously not poor offended people defending their land against HOSTILE occupation/bad treatment etc.

[piper]

The Russian troops did what they could, with what resources, timing and whatnot that they had available. There was not much else they could do. 1000 hostages, a school rigged with bombs, and a bunch of fanatical terrorists inside. They did they best they could, and for that, they should be applauded. M Lambert, do not bash those who are putting their lives on the line for their nation, what could you have done different?

On another note, this is just another example that Islamic fundamentalism knows no bounds, no borders, nothing. For the terrorists in this attack were Arab mercenaries, fundamentalists, jihadists and a few locals. Very few Chechens were involved in this. This attack was done not for a seperate Cechneya, but for a seperate Cechneya under radical ISLAMIC law. It is time for the world to realise that were are fighting a very dangerous, very irrational and very desperate enemy who knows no bounds. An enemy who goal is to turn the better part of the world into a fundaMENTAList Islamic land. It is time for the Muslim world to stand up and say 'no, we do not support this, they are acting alone, we will stand with the rest of the world against these dealers of evil'. And say this not as a fragmented bunch of tiny groups, but as a whole. Or to say otherwise so the rest of us know who we are fighting.

The war is not against Muslims, but against those Islamic fundamentalists who interpret Islam in the wrong way, in that we should all be under their barbaric and third-world interpretation of these laws and way of life.

Remember all those bad movies where the world had to bond to fight the invading aliens? Well, the 'war on terror' is like this. The whole world must join to fight these fundamentalists or else we are doomed with a rein of terror for a long, long time. Everyone, West-East, Christian-Muslim...everyone has to fight against this force of evil.

[ian]

i also disagree that the attack was a sham.my reasons.
1) it was not infact an attack. captives tried to escape and an explosive device was detonated which caused a chain reaction setting off more explosives.the rusians then moved in to recover any captives they could.
2) the chechens had prepared for the seige for weeks. a weapons cache was burried in the school. it was a consideable stockpile and 1 that noone could of forseen.
3) the chechens were supported by arabic extremist fighters who have been fighting wars most of theire lives so they knew exactly what they were doing.
4) the sheer numbers of hostages would have made an assault near enough impossible.

the quote that the russians should have accepted help because theire special forces arent well enough trained is ridiculous they have the 5th best trained specil forces in the world. after the sas, delta force, mossad(isreali counter teror team), gsg9(german counter terror team) then its the russians.

i agree with our russian friend that the terrorism is just a front to attack other countries. iraq was better off without the americans as there is unemployment and prisoners are still tortured.
since the war on terror began terror attacks have increased. and i also belive that the archtypical view af the americans being gr8 soldiers is wrong sure they can bomb a target with pin point accuracy but they lack simple common sense when it comes to soldiering. letr me recall vietnam and sommalia complete cockups.
my 2 cents

[Scoopable]

I haven't read all of the post...

My Thinking is.. Publicity, sure a hostage situation in Russia will make the news, but include children, and you have the worlds attention, include the willing to die for the cause, and you get more attention.

The Russian Military, did waht they could, and i respect them for that, the situation could not of been handleed better by the U.S. Canada, britian, or any other country.

it's a shame we always find solution to the problem long after it's too late.

[ian]

these people cant call themselves FREEDOM FIGHTERS as they are not fighting for freedom they are not oppressed. islam dictates that these terrorists are fighting a "jihad" a holy war. would some1 like to explain to me exactly Who the enemy is. in my eyes a defenceless 12 year old should not be a target for terror.

[mbabenko]

piper
Thanks. That's what I'm talking about. Their moral convictions allow them to kill women and children. I find it absolutely outrageous. I guess you mean that this attack wasn't just against Russia, but against the whole world, and I agree. It's definitely time for other Muslims to rise and to speak up against it. It's sad however to observe that most of Islamic people that I know (I don't want to generalize) (and I understand that I may not live in the most representative region of Canada) DO support Chechens and Palestinians in their attacks. It's equally sad to see Russia become the second Israel, but if terrorists all around the world can unite, so can the countries fighting them.

ian

these people cant call themselves FREEDOM FIGHTERS as they are not fighting for freedom they are not oppressed. islam dictates that these terrorists are fighting a "jihad" a holy war. would some1 like to explain to me exactly Who the enemy is. in my eyes a defenceless 12 year old should not be a target for terror.
Well yes, but you see, in their eyes it should. You can refer to Palestino-Israelian conflict. Remember what were their arguments? Something like:
- We should kill Jews.
- Why?
- Because god told us to.
(It was a real interview by the way, I'll try to get a reference). That's the aruments they have. It's enough for them to kill a child. That's what they're taught from their childhood. The god is Allah. When Allah wants you to kill someone, you do it and go to the paradise where you'll get 40 virgins as well as naked boys (off topic: yes, naked boys are actually mentioned in Koran as a part of a program and I have pretty reliable sources).
Also, unfortunately I'll have to disagree about Iraq, for it wasn't attacked for the pretext of supporting terrorists. Saddam could've avoided the war if he'd been a bit quicker. Also I wasn't entirely comfortable with the idea of him heaving all the weird weapons. Even though US and GB didn't find any, let's face it, he probably destroyed them. What I didn't appreciate is them not getting out of there as fast as they could AFTER the war was over and the new government was established. On the other hand, I'm sure that you're right that this war just increased the anger level of Islamic community and brought lots of new recruits to Al-Quaida, Hamas etc...

- By the way, mossad is almost entirely composed and was trained by ex-Russian special force agents. When Israel was established (1949 I guess), Russia allowed its Jews to leave. That's how come Israel's got so much in common with Russia militarywise.

[ian]

the point you made about the jews was good but if you look in detail about the 2 religions they share many similarites. i dont belive the koran.to be wrong but mis-interpreted.


back to the iraq issue it WILL become another northern ireland i know what the situation is in both countries because im half irish and come come from an army family.
the situation could have been handled better dictators have been "removed" from power before and given real planning and some tim could be done again.

as for the russian training point of view i totaly agree. i spent 2 weeks on summer camp with lithuainian cadets whos training was influenced near enough totaly by the russians. they were well trained and well disciplined. maby armys could learn alot.
and in another point of veiw the russians have developped some of the best kit in the world. the ak-47, 74 deries ect. and the draganov svd and the mauser sniper rifles are amongst the best and most weidly used sniper rifles in the world.

[M Lambert]

i agree iraq will become a second NI.

No argument that the russians are equipped well, my point is they do not have the same EXPIERIENCE in such things.

OK something else: how about if this was Chechean organised thing, not just a few people with a political and religious views.
What are your thoughts on it then


PS: i like these points, good arguments :)

[ian]

if you mean what if the chechens were a malitia i would still be against the fact that they used kids as a barganing toll. there are countless viable targets.

i suppose your right about the experience but they proved themselves in the theater seige

[M Lambert]

that being the theatre siege they used gas and a number of people died? or is this a diferent theatre siege?

[ian]

point taken. but that could have been prevented had the emergency services been on the scene in greater numbers. the gas used is an anestetic that causes cardio pulmanary arrest after an extended which is easy to treat with the equiptment in ambulances. but casualtys are taken in alot of rescues.

[M Lambert]

yes... ahh, but look, bullets flying across the street because the area wasnt cordoned off.... do you think there was enough emergency services to deal with inside wounded ASWELL as people being shot OUTSIDE at this incident?

Alot can be done to prevent things, but it isnt. THAT is the point

[mbabenko]

Ian
Yes, there will be problems in Irak, but I see them mosre as inside problems. They have to take care of their own problems before they switch to US. Meanwhile, we have certain organizations which are already established acting against US, and hell, pretty much againt the whole world. And you don't even have to look far for an example, the most recent manifistation was 3 days ago.

Lambert
Americans wouldn't do any better in the theater! They can't even stop a kid who's gotten his father's gun from killing a bunch of his friends. As a matter of fact, you seem to be forgettng that Russians saved most of the hostages.

Of course it was organized. How the hell would explosives be already in the basement when they stroke if it wasn't organized???? They put them in during the renovations! That's what Russian media say (and unlike American media, they know what they're talking about).


Btw, as someone who comes from Moscow, I can tell you one thing: They could've done nothing to prevent bullets from flying accross the street.

[Lil Lightnin]

And I believe they knew all bout 911 way before it happened and let it happen to have a pretext to attack Afghanistan

That's a pretty bold statement considering 3000 people lost their lives.
Rest assured if the Americans could've prevented the events of that day, they would have. I can't believe this point is even up for debate. Your idea pretty much parallels those people who believe that nobody landed on the moon; warping a clear point into an unrealistic one in order to try and gain an advantage in an arguement. Infact, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find too many others that agree with you ANYWHERE just because that's how far off your conclusion is.

[offguard96]

Chechnya is not about religion (or it wasn't when Russia invaded in 1994), it's about the Chechen right to secede from Russia. Nothing excuses the actions taken in Russia by the attackers, but there are reasons beyond "radical islam" and "fanaticism".

Did you know, mbabenko, that Russia bombed Grozny to dust, killing thousands of men, women, and children, before invading in 1994? Do you know how many of them have died since, fighting off the invasion? Do you know how many are now homeless, orphaned, maimed, or otherwise torn by this war?

More important, if you don't know, will you at least make an attempt to be more informed about it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2000/chechnya/default.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1292799.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/460399.stm

[mbabenko]

Lightnin

That's a pretty bold statement considering 3000 people lost their lives.
Rest assured if the Americans could've prevented the events of that day, they would have. I can't believe this point is even up for debate. Your idea pretty much parallels those people who believe that nobody landed on the moon; warping a clear point into an unrealistic one in order to try and gain an advantage in an arguement. Infact, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find too many others that agree with you ANYWHERE just because that's how far off your conclusion is.
I actually don't know and care even less if that was the case. They definitely knew that something was going to happen. They definitely could've done more. Or not. I don't care; it's not my country. What I don't appreciate though is my country's being criticized to promote the US. US is no better. Also, I didn't really understand the analogy between 911 and the moon...

Offguard.
come on, I've explained already THEY'VE LOST PUBLIC REFERNDUMS. Chechen people want to remain uner Russian government.

Did you know, mbabenko, that Russia bombed Grozny to dust, killing thousands of men, women, and children, before invading in 1994?
I know what happened in Grozniy because
- I was in Russia then
- Some of my friends are now in the army.
People knew what was going to happen. They had to go away or suffer the consequences. It was WAR. And I hate this argument. That's the one that Palestinians like to use: "Yea, but they've bombed our city with women and children". At least they warned before. You know what really makes Russians better then Chechens? They don't go to their schools with the sole purpose of killing their children! I know that people died in Chechnya like the ones who died in Palestine. They don't have anyone else to blame except the freaking terrorists who brought it on them.

And sorry, I don't trust BBC, because all they give is a Big Bull -Crap. (Pro-American crap that it)

That actually outrages me! I'm so angry now! I, who am Russian turn out to be IGNORANT of the facts. Luckily there's British news service to explain what has really happened.

BBC man to the rescue! fighting ignorance and wrong perseption of facts!

[M Lambert]

offguard96, i am actually really happy youve showed up :D perfect points :)

mbabenko, do you really think saying "i dont care that 3000 people died because of 1 mans beliefs" is going to help you make valid points when you say that its really important when a parralell incident happens in your nation? Go up to an american perosn who lost their friend or relation in that incident and say it. I would love to know if you had even the slightest bit of humanity in you if you did.

Back on topic:
Russians better? nice view that, you are BOTH PEOPLE, come on get a grip, its not "russians vs chechens" its politics.

You are right about one thing, it is War, its war against ourselves. It's war against our fellow humans, its war simply because Russia will not allow a small part of it to operate on its own, its a War alright, its a Greedy War, all war is based on riches or religion, and this is based heavily on riches.

[mbabenko]

Lambert

mbabenko, do you really think saying "i dont care that 3000 people died because of 1 mans beliefs" is going to help you make valid points when you say that its really important when a parralell incident happens in your nation?
Does that make them any less valid? And btw it's incredible how you twist things. Did I say tht I don't care that 3000 people died? What I said was that I don't care if US government knew about it before.


Go up to an american perosn who lost their friend or relation in that incident and say it.
Suddenly you're forgetting the non-Americans dead in the accident.


Russians better? nice view that, you are BOTH PEOPLE, come on get a grip, its not "russians vs chechens" its politics
How does it change anything?


You are right about one thing, it is War, its war against ourselves. It's war against our fellow humans, its war simply because Russia will not allow a small part of it to operate on its own, its a War alright, its a Greedy War, all war is based on riches or religion, and this is based heavily on riches.
Oh my god..... For the 3rd time, they've lost a crap number of referendums. Do you know what a referendum is? It's when government asks people what they want. (1 a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative). People said that they want to stay with Russia. These terrorists represent therefore a minority. THIS ARGUMENT IS THEREFORE NOT VALID

[offguard96]

For the 3rd time, they've lost a crap number of referendums.

Sources please.

I know that my source (www.bbc.co.uk) seems much better informed than you. Probably because instead of simply being a young person in Russia at the time that Grozny/Grozniy/Groznyy was bombed, they had adults on the ground IN Grozny, and in the surrounding area. Just because it's a British news service means...well, it doesn't mean anything. Their track record, over the past 70+ years, is pretty good, so I'm inclined to follow their version of things.

Here's what the BBC has to say about it:



Chechnya is dwarfed by the country with which it fought a successful war of independence.

Smaller than Wales, it covers just over 6,000 square miles in the Caucasus mountains and has a population of about one million people.

More than 100,000 of these are believed to have died in the war with Russia. The secession movement began after the fall of Communism, with Chechnya proclaiming independence on 2 November 1991.

In March 1992, a constitution was adopted, defining the Chechen Republic as an independent, secular state governed by a president and a parliament.

In 1994, Russia sent troops to Chechnya to crush the independence movement of President Dzhokhar Dudayev.

Russian troops moved into the capital, Grozny, after a bombardment that reduced it to ruins. But they could not hold the city against a committed, warlike people.


In June 1995, Chechen rebels attacked the southern Russian city of Budyonnovsk, and took 2,000 civilians hostage in a hospital.

Russian troops unsuccessfully stormed the hospital twice. After negotiations between Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and rebels, the hostages were released.

In July 1995, negotiators signed a military agreement on troop withdrawals and disarmament of rebel fighters, but the pact stalled as clashes continued.

In February 1996, President Yeltsin admitted the Chechnya foray was "maybe one of our mistakes".

He announced a halt to military action and offered talks with rebels. A truce was agreed in May 1996.

But Chechnya's status is still a matter of dispute.



Each side in the conflict in Chechnya gives it a different name and in a sense both are right.

The Chechen rebels call their struggle a "war of liberation". They say that Chechnya has never voluntarily joined Russia and has only ever been conquered by military force.

For them the 1994-6 war fought with Moscow and the latest campaign to crush Chechnya's bid for independence, which began in the autumn of 1999, prove that Russian governments only talk the language of force.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin calls the conflict an "anti-terrorist operation".

Worryingly for the Russian president, there are increasing signs that opposition to Moscow's will in Chechnya is refusing to die down.

Russian officials say they only sent in troops to the breakaway republic in 1999 after a string of random bomb explosions in Moscow and two southern Russian cities killed more than 200 civilians.

Officials in Moscow argue that after their troops left in 1996, Chechnya became a haven for organised crime and kidnapping.
...
Media coverage of the recent conflict is also far more restricted.

That means the Russian military is free to act with much greater brutality.

There are reports that young Chechen men disappear at checkpoints and are detained and tortured on suspicion of being rebel fighters.

Two years ago many young Chechens were only happy at the thought of rejoining Russia and regaining some kind of stability. Now many of them are again taking up arms against the Russian army.

Also, you can read what a Chechen Doctor has to say about it all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/577525.stm

[mbabenko]

Offguard.
Wow! Another Mister BBC man! Well, keep using BBC as a source of info, as for me, I'll stick to my sources.




Russia and the Chechnya Referendum

Douglas Davidson, Charge d'Affaires of U.S. Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Statement to the OSCE Permanent Council
Vienna, Austria
March 27, 2003

Released by the U.S. Mission to the OSCE

(As delivered)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to welcome both [Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Director] Ambassador Strohal and [Head of the ODIHR Election Section] Mr. Balian to the Permanent Council this afternoon. In the case of the latter, we very much appreciate his willingness to perform his duty above and beyond the call of duty in this last valiant effort, and we hope he will be allowed to take up his newest duties in short order. In the case of the former, we equally appreciate his willingness to travel to Vienna today to speak with us about this very important issue. While we will obviously need additional time to fully consider the report he has given us today, we would like to take the opportunity to offer some of our initial reactions on the March 23 referendum in Chechnya.

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government has closely followed the preparations for the conduct of the referendum on a new constitution, and we are pleased that it took place without acts of violence or terrorism. We are also pleased that mobile ballot boxes were allowed to cross into Ingushetia to allow internally displaced persons to vote there.

Further, we have taken note today of the concerns expressed by Ambassador Strohal about some of the processes and procedures with regard to the organization and conduct of the referendum. We are certainly not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the Russian reports that the referendum received a 96 percent approval with a turnout of 79 percent of the electorate, given that of course, ODIHR itself was not in a position to fully observe the referendum.

We do, however, believe that most Chechens desire peace and an enduring political settlement to the current conflict. The aim of any political process must be to convince the Chechen people that it is a sincere and legitimate effort to end the violence, to end human rights abuses, to reconstruct the region, and to address legitimate grievances.

The holding of the referendum underscores the continued need for the Russian Government to broaden the dialogue, engaging at least some of those who have supported the separatist cause in that process. We thus hope that this referendum has begun the search for a broad political process creating institutions of self-government acceptable to the people of Chechnya. We are encouraged by the proposals on the elements of a political settlement made by [Russian] President Putin and other senior Russian officials in the run-up to the referendum, and we urge the Russian Government to follow through on these proposals.

Mr. Chairman, the United States continues to believe that the OSCE can assist the Russian Government and local Chechen authorities in reconstruction and economic development, in the building up of democratic institutions and in the promotion of human rights. We would like to hear more of the ideas of Ambassador Strohal for possible areas of future cooperation in Chechnya, following from ODIHR's observations, which the Ambassador has spoken to us about today and drawing from lessons learned during the past two trips to the region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


You like American sources? Well that was US department of state.

International Observers: Referendum in Chechnya is Democratic and Legitimate

The referendum on the draft constitution of the Chechen Republic and the laws on election of the republic's president and parliament is democratic and legitimate, according to observers of the CIS, the Islamic Conference Organisation, the Asia-Africa Solidarity Organisation, deputies of the State Duma and representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry who observed the voting in Chechnya.

The observers' joint statement stresses that the voting was held in compliance with international standards and the national legislation.

Observers note that the Russian Federation authorities gave the citizens an opportunity to vote freely and independently.

The document stresses that the observers could perform their functions without any hindrances, and these conclusions are drawn from their own observations and analysis of collected material.

According to the observers, there were not too many soldiers and policemen at the polling stations, and their presence was corresponding to the situation. They did not hamper the realisation of the voters' rights and freedoms, the observers said.

The observers did notice some flaws in the course of voting, but these were merely technical wrongdoings and were immediately corrected, the document points out.

That was a Russian news-paper.

I've read what the doctor thinks. What a load of crap! The war doesn't make Putin any more popular then he was. He doesn't need no war to be a good president. He doesn't need their oil, for Russia has already lost more than it can possibly win from all the oilfields combined in military equipement and in human lives.


The unprecedented ultimatum to citizens to get out of Grozny or to be destroyed as if they were bandits, amounts to terrorism conducted by the state.
That's exactly the difference between them and terrorists.


From these institutions and the international community, Russia must get a clear message: it cannot continue the war in Chechnya because this is a war against civilians and the Chechen people.
Hell no, it's the contrary. If the civilian were all out of the city like they were supposed to, it would be between Russians and terrorists. If some were stupid enough to stay, they should've expected to get killed either by Russian or by the terrorists who by the way aren't more pityful to the civilians then the Russians.


Russia is contravening the Geneva Convention by committing a mass violation of human rights.
Their rights to remain under government they chose?


It is a war that is dangerous not only for Chechnya, but also for Russia itself, as it could affect the way the country develops. Will Russia remain a democratic state or will it become another nationalist or fascist state?
Well, I don't see Russians blowing themselves up in Chechen schools.

[offguard96]

Further, we have taken note today of the concerns expressed by Ambassador Strohal about some of the processes and procedures with regard to the organization and conduct of the referendum. We are certainly not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the Russian reports that the referendum received a 96 percent approval with a turnout of 79 percent of the electorate, given that of course, ODIHR itself was not in a position to fully observe the referendum.

Read this paragraph carefully. Not in a position to comment on RUSSIAN reports? Observers not present during the entire referendum? This smacks of inaccuracy and corruption...


We do, however, believe that most Chechens desire peace and an enduring political settlement to the current conflict. The aim of any political process must be to convince the Chechen people that it is a sincere and legitimate effort to end the violence, to end human rights abuses, to reconstruct the region, and to address legitimate grievances.

This says nothing. It simply says "Chechens want peace, they want diplomatic peace, and they want the abuse to stop. They also want someone who'll listen to their case". If anything, this paragraph is a stinging indictment of Russia's conduct in Chechnya.


The holding of the referendum underscores the continued need for the Russian Government to broaden the dialogue, engaging at least some of those who have supported the separatist cause in that process.

Basically, this means "Russia needs to listen. Stop shooting, and listen. They want to separate, you should listen to them."


We thus hope that this referendum has begun the search for a broad political process creating institutions of self-government acceptable to the people of Chechnya.

"They want to govern themselves. Let them."


We are encouraged by the proposals on the elements of a political settlement made by [Russian] President Putin and other senior Russian officials in the run-up to the referendum, and we urge the Russian Government to follow through on these proposals.

"Alright, you've pretended to care...now show us you really do."


That was a Russian news-paper.

Enough said. Let me guess, Pravda.ru?

[mbabenko]

Read this paragraph carefully. Not in a position to comment on RUSSIAN reports? Observers not present during the entire referendum? This smacks of inaccuracy and corruption...
Have you read the second one? There you have the opinion of people who ARE in position.


Basically, this means "Russia needs to listen. Stop shooting, and listen. They want to separate, you should listen to them."
And who told you that? BBC? Can I have a reference? (I'd prefer a non-pro-american reference)


"They want to govern themselves. Let them."
They sure do. That's whatt democracy is all about. That's also why they need to get rid of these terrorists.


Enough said. Let me guess, Pravda.ru?
Way to go.

[offguard96]

And who told you that? BBC? Can I have a reference? (I'd prefer a non-pro-american reference)

No, an ability to read what you quoted told me this.


They sure do. That's whatt democracy is all about. That's also why they need to get rid of these terrorists.

Then we agree that the Russians must leave for democracy to take root...right?


Hell no, it's the contrary. If the civilian were all out of the city like they were supposed to, it would be between Russians and terrorists. If some were stupid enough to stay, they should've expected to get killed either by Russian or by the terrorists who by the way aren't more pityful to the civilians then the Russians.

What is going on in your head? They must leave because Russia does not want them to be free? How does that even remotely make sense? Russia's terrorists are Chechen freedom fighters...and they probably would have minded their own business if Russia hadn't invaded in 1994. Their frustration is compounded by Yeltsin and Putin's elections based almost entirely on promises to deal with Chechnya by force. They attack Russians because they know Russians voted for Putin and Yeltsin, and that Putin and Yeltsin's campaigns were based on attacking Chechnya.


Their rights to remain under government they chose?

Yes, their right to govern themselves. Bravo! I think you're on to something here...


Well, I don't see Russians blowing themselves up in Chechen schools.

No, usually when you do see them they're either buttoned down in a tank or flying overhead in a bomber. Does it make it right? Children still die, even if the bomber doesn't...

As for Pravda.ru, all I have to say is this:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/

I think that about sums it up. Pardon the length of time it took me to write this...I couldn't stop laughing long enough to paste the link.

Also, you may want to read this, from a Moscow newspaper:

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm

[mbabenko]

No, an ability to read what you quoted told me this.
good, because it doesn't tell ME the same thing.


Then we agree that the Russians must leave for democracy to take root...right?
No, I wasn't referring to Russians when I said terrorists.


What is going on in your head? They must leave because Russia does not want them to be free? How does that even remotely make sense? Russia's terrorists are Chechen freedom fighters...and they probably would have minded their own business if Russia hadn't invaded in 1994. Their frustration is compounded by Yeltsin and Putin's elections based almost entirely on promises to deal with Chechnya by force. They attack Russians because they know Russians voted for Putin and Yeltsin, and that Putin and Yeltsin's campaigns were based on attacking Chechnya.
- They must've left because Russians were going to bomb the city, and they did, and they've warned people, so those who died have nothing to complain about.
-Russia wouldn't have invaded if they were minding their own buisness at the first place
- Putin's campaign was based on war. Do you have sources? (not like the Chechen doctor source, I mean the non-bullcrap sources). And I really mean it I don't know what his campaign was based on.


Yes, their right to govern themselves. Bravo! I think you're on to something here...
You know what a federation (like in Russian Federation) is?


No, usually when you do see them they're either buttoned down in a tank or flying overhead in a bomber. Does it make it right? Children still die, even if the bomber doesn't...
Yes because generally they're warned before.


As for Pravda.ru, all I have to say is this:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/
Like if BBC had less crap. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/

[offguard96]

good, because it doesn't tell ME the same thing.

And what does that say about our respective reading of said material?


No, I wasn't referring to Russians when I said terrorists.

So, who else is there? The Chechens fight for freedom, like the French Resistance did in the Second World War. What do the Russians fight for? Isn't it essentially the same thing the Nazis fought for in France?


They must've left because Russians were going to bomb the city, and they did, and they've warned people, so those who died have nothing to complain about.

"Alright, the government says we have to burn your house down, mbabenko, because there's cockroaches and rats inside that we have to kill somehow. Leave, or die." (let's say now that you don't leave, and you die) "Well, it was your own fault. Don't be stupid next time and we won't have to burn you along with your house."


Russia wouldn't have invaded if they were minding their own buisness at the first place

? But they were...they were trying to be free. They had a government planned out, they had a constitution written, and they had declared their sovereignty in 1991...and Russia invaded in 1994...I don't see how Russia can possibly be anything but wrong.


Putin's campaign was based on war. Do you have sources? (not like the Chechen doctor source, I mean the non-bullcrap sources). And I really mean it I don't know what his campaign was based on.



Public support for Mr Putin's campaign against separatist rebels in Chechnya helped sweep him to victory in the presidential election.

Moscow intends to impose direct presidential rule on Chechnya now that its army controls Grozny and large stretches of the republic.


You know what a federation (like in Russian Federation) is?

Do you know what it means when a people declares independence in 1991, has a constitution in 1992, and then is invaded in 1994?


Yes because generally they're warned before.

What? The Russians say "alright, we're coming in with some 250kg loads today...everybody duck and cover!" or "the artillery will begin firing at 1115 sharp, so make sure you're safe!" Are you sure? Why would they do that? That doesn't make any sense, militarily.


Like if BBC had less crap. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/

Again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/

The BBC does also offer some explanations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/aliens/ufos/index.shtml

They give examples of what a UFO might be, other than "aliens". There is nothing wrong with questioning the existence of UFOs, but there is something wrong with claiming that a camera has been invented that takes pictures of the past, and of ghosts.

[mbabenko]

And what does that say about our respective reading of said material?
It tells me that the point of the discussion is lost anyways, and there's no use arguing for we'll always be able to give each other sources from where we can extract info which matches our opinion.


So, who else is there? The Chechens fight for freedom, like the French Resistance did in the Second World War. What do the Russians fight for? Isn't it essentially the same thing the Nazis fought for in France?
So you mean that Al-Quaida people who attacked the school were Chechens? come on!


"Alright, the government says we have to burn your house down, mbabenko, because there's cockroaches and rats inside that we have to kill somehow. Leave, or die." (let's say now that you don't leave, and you die) "Well, it was your own fault. Don't be stupid next time and we won't have to burn you along with your house." Well I don't know about the roaches, but if my town was taken over by terrorists and government would order to leave or die, I'd sure as hell leave the town. Where? I don't know. Some refugee camp. Whatever. It's better then dieing.


? But they were...they were trying to be free. They had a government planned out, they had a constitution written, and they had declared their sovereignty in 1991...and Russia invaded in 1994...I don't see how Russia can possibly be anything but wrong.
Well then their sovereignty was illegal. Russia didn't go after Ukrain or other provinces. And all right then why did they win the referendum?

Yea, about the sources, please don't make me do a ressearch on Putin's campaign. Believe me, he had many other important points. Look at the other candidates' campaigns, they all included kicking Chechnia's butt.


Do you know what it means when a people declares independence in 1991, has a constitution in 1992, and then is invaded in 1994?
Come on, legally in 1994, Chechnia was still a part of Russia.


What? The Russians say "alright, we're coming in with some 250kg loads today...everybody duck and cover!" or "the artillery will begin firing at 1115 sharp, so make sure you're safe!" Are you sure? Why would they do that? That doesn't make any sense, militarily.
Yes it does and Israel does it all the time and I support them. It's better then just bombing them without any warning, isn't it. And imagine how risky it is to send soldiers in a town where you have terrorists in every building. Would YOU send YOUR squad there? Ok were Americans better in Vietnam? Hell no, so stop blaming Russians.


They give examples of what a UFO might be, other than "aliens". There is nothing wrong with questioning the existence of UFOs, but there is something wrong with claiming that a camera has been invented that takes pictures of the past, and of ghosts.
Well some branches of quantum physics can explain the pictures from the past.... As for ghosts, I don't know and neither do I care. BBC has a section on paranormal phenomena just like pravda, so let's not use it as an indicator of credibility.

[offguard96]

It tells me that the point of the discussion is lost anyways, and there's no use arguing for we'll always be able to give each other sources from where we can extract info which matches our opinion.

My sources support my argument. Your sources are
a) a diplomatic document which in fact supports my opinion
b) Pravda.ru...again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/


So you mean that Al-Quaida people who attacked the school were Chechens? come on!

?


Well I don't know about the roaches, but if my town was taken over by terrorists and government would order to leave or die, I'd sure as hell leave the town. Where? I don't know. Some refugee camp. Whatever. It's better then dieing.

What if your country was led by its leader, and another country wanted to get rid of your leader by blowing up your town. Would you leave then?


Well then their sovereignty was illegal. Russia didn't go after Ukrain or other provinces. And all right then why did they win the referendum?

How can they have a constitution without being a nation? Why did Russia wait three years before asserting itself? How can a people's sovereignty be illegal? Where is your source on the referendum? (Please don't use Pravda.ru again...http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/)


Look at the other candidates' campaigns, they all included kicking Chechnia's butt.

Sources?


Come on, legally in 1994, Chechnia was still a part of Russia.

No, they declared independence in 1991, and had a constitution in 1992. That means "sovereign". Also, you will note that most news sources (BBC included) refer to Chechnya as a Republic.


Yes it does and Israel does it all the time and I support them. It's better then just bombing them without any warning, isn't it. And imagine how risky it is to send soldiers in a town where you have terrorists in every building. Would YOU send YOUR squad there? Ok were Americans better in Vietnam? Hell no, so stop blaming Russians.

They killed, maimed, orphaned, and rendered homeless hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, in the midst of an illegal war against a sovereign nation. Why would I blame anyone except Russia?


Well some branches of quantum physics can explain the pictures from the past.... As for ghosts, I don't know and neither do I care. BBC has a section on paranormal phenomena just like pravda, so let's not use it as an indicator of credibility.

Yes, let's use it as an indicator. Your source has tons of stories on the subject...for example:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/13623_aliens.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/12757_underwaterCiv.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/12182_alien.html
Aliens are the default answer to EVERY question at Pravda.ru. How can we possibly think they are credible?

[mbabenko]

My sources support my argument. Your sources are
a) a diplomatic document which in fact supports my opinion
b) Pravda.ru...again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/
- Well if Russia's winning the referendum supports your opinion, then we must be talking about the same thing.

- I mean that they're not even chechens and they're fighting in their name. They are mercineries and not average people.


What if your country was led by its leader, and another country wanted to get rid of your leader by blowing up your town. Would you leave then?
Like US and Irak? Well, YOU BET YOUR BUTT I'd leave.


How can they have a constitution without being a nation? Why did Russia wait three years before asserting itself? How can a people's sovereignty be illegal? Where is your source on the referendum? (Please don't use Pravda.ru again...http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/)
- How can Quebec have a civil law?
- Because Russia had more important problems
- Because there hasn't been a referendum
- I'll use pravda as long as you use BBC. And even if you don't, hell with that, I'll use what I want and if you don't believe it, too bad.


Sources?
Where are the sources I've asked for?


They killed, maimed, orphaned, and rendered homeless hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, in the midst of an illegal war against a sovereign nation. Why would I blame anyone except Russia?
These are individual crimes of soldiers that should be punished (but weren't, because there's no proof against individuals). Americans did the same in Vietnam, French did the same in Algeria (And it was worse because Vietnamese actually wanted communism and Algerians wanted independance, unlike chechens who voted for Russia). The only difference is that Chechens do more harm to their own people then Russian soldiers.


Aliens are the default answer to EVERY question at Pravda.ru. How can we possibly think they are credible?
You DO accept the explanation of BBC's.

[offguard96]

Well if Russia's winning the referendum supports your opinion, then we must be talking about the same thing.

READ THIS PLEASE.


We are certainly not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the Russian reports that the referendum received a 96 percent approval with a turnout of 79 percent of the electorate, given that of course, ODIHR itself was not in a position to fully observe the referendum.


I mean that they're not even chechens and they're fighting in their name. They are mercineries and not average people.

All the average people in Chechnya are either dead, dying, or fighting.


- How can Quebec have a civil law?

- Because there hasn't been a referendum

Quebec is still subject to Canada. What are these referenda you speak of all the time then? The ones conducted by Russia say that the people want to be Russian, whereas the people still fight against Russian control. What is going on then?


Where are the sources I've asked for?

See the bar on the right hand side of your screen? There are arrows at the top and bottom extremities of it, and a blue or gray slider somewhere in between. If you click on the upper arrow, you will notice that your screen will change it's appearance, and things which were once above your screen's field of view will come down into the center, and things in the center will go down and eventually out of your field of view. This is called "scrolling", and the bar is called a "scrollbar". If you "scroll" up (press the up arrow), and stop when you reach some of my posts, you will find the sources you have been asking for.


These are individual crimes of soldiers that should be punished (but weren't, because there's no proof against individuals). Americans did the same in Vietnam, French did the same in Algeria

So? Russia did the same in Afghanistan...what's your point? Is it that soldiers do terrible things in Chechnya on their own? If it is, then all I can say is that you are entirely wrong. Do you think Putin, an ex-KGB agent, has any qualms about murder? It got him elected, after all...why would he stop?


You DO accept the explanation of BBC's.

At the BBC, aliens are a question. At Pravda.ru, Aliens are the answer to all questions. That is the difference between the two, and that is why BBC is reliable and Pravda is NOT.

I know you don't care whether I post a million different sources. You're cornered, and you're throwing a temper tantrum. Whether you choose to believe my sources or not is up to you, just as it is up to all the readers of this thread. Will they believe Pravda.ru, or www.bbc.co.uk and www.worldpressreview.org?

[mbabenko]

READ THIS PLEASE.
Does it say that Russians didn't win the referendum? I'm sorry, I'm Russian and don't read English that well.


Quebec is still subject to Canada. What are these referenda you speak of all the time then? The ones conducted by Russia say that the people want to be Russian, whereas the people still fight against Russian control. What is going on then?
Terrorists use people's religious convictions to establish dictatorship as it was the case in Afghanistan.


See the bar on the right hand side of your screen? There are arrows at the top and bottom extremities of it, and a blue or gray slider somewhere in between. If you click on the upper arrow, you will notice that your screen will change it's appearance, and things which were once above your screen's field of view will come down into the center, and things in the center will go down and eventually out of your field of view. This is called "scrolling", and the bar is called a "scrollbar". If you "scroll" up (press the up arrow), and stop when you reach some of my posts, you will find the sources you have been asking for.
WOW! You should work in the tech support for AOL! I followed your wise advice and what did I see?

- Putin's campaign was based on war. Do you have sources? (not like the Chechen doctor source, I mean the non-bullcrap sources). And I really mean it I don't know what his campaign was based on.
Wow!


So? Russia did the same in Afghanistan...what's your point? Is it that soldiers do terrible things in Chechnya on their own? If it is, then all I can say is that you are entirely wrong. Do you think Putin, an ex-KGB agent, has any qualms about murder? It got him elected, after all...why would he stop?
My point is that every war has collateral victims. Did Germans go exploding into French schools when they took Alsace-Lorraine?


I know you don't care whether I post a million different sources. You're cornered, and you're throwing a temper tantrum. Whether you choose to believe my sources or not is up to you, just as it is up to all the readers of this thread. Will they believe Pravda.ru, or www.bbc.co.uk and www.worldpressreview.org?
Depends which extremity are they closer to.

[Lil Lightnin]

They definitely knew that something was going to happen. They definitely could've done more.


And the Russians didn't know something was going to happen? With month after month and year after year of these attacks from Chechen rebels, an attack like this should come as a surprise? I still think you're in a poor position to be criticizing American homeland security when you're as much of a CNN analyst as the rest of us (and there's no need to point out that you watch other networks...that really isn't relevant in this case).


Also, I didn't really understand the analogy between 911 and the moon...


You've never seen those bogus conspiracy theories where people claim that the lunar landing never actually occured? I was implying that your contention with regards to the Americans allowing the 9/11 terrorist attacks to follow through in order to justify launching campaigns in the middle east holds about as much credibility as the people that said that Neil Armstrong never set his foot on the moon. Actually, your claim holds LESS ground now that I think about it.

[offguard96]

Does it say that Russians didn't win the referendum? I'm sorry, I'm Russian and don't read English that well.

What it says is that the person writing the document refuses to comment on whether or not the pro-Russian vote won the referendum, because they were not in a position to observe the referendum, and all they have to go on are Russian reports. This casts serious doubt on the outcome, and effectively makes your source a non-entity.


Terrorists use people's religious convictions to establish dictatorship as it was the case in Afghanistan.

Oh, THAT's why they had a constitution in 1992, and THAT's why they were establishing a parliament at that time! NOW I see why Russia invaded! Democracy was taking root! All is made clear...


Wow!

Ugh...I knew you were going to make me re-post them. Here they are, then, since you can't scroll up far enough to find them yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2000/chechnya/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1292799.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/460399.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/577525.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/739974.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm

Those were the ones supporting my points. Here are the ones I used to refute your points (and to cast serious doubt on Pravda.ru's reliability as a source):
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/13623_aliens.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/12757_underwaterCiv.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/12182_alien.html

And to explain the nature of the BBC's coverage of UFOs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/aliens/ufos/index.shtml


My point is that every war has collateral victims. Did Germans go exploding into French schools when they took Alsace-Lorraine?

Your war has no "greater purpose", at least not for the Russians fighting it. They are oppressing Chechens, and killing Chechens. What for?

German forces pillaged French villages in both world wars.


Depends which extremity are they closer to.

I hope, for your sake, that at least one person will be foolish enough to believe Pravda.ru. Then, your arguments won't have been entirely in vain.

I really hope, though, that anyone who reads this thread looks at all the sources and decides for themselves whether this is a war that deserves to continue to rage.

[mbabenko]

Lightnin

And the Russians didn't know something was going to happen? With month after month and year after year of these attacks from Chechen rebels, an attack like this should come as a surprise? I still think you're in a poor position to be criticizing American homeland security when you're as much of a CNN analyst as the rest of us (and there's no need to point out that you watch other networks...that really isn't relevant in this case). Oh I was on the defensive here. It's MY point that Americans are no better than Russians And visversa.


You've never seen those bogus conspiracy theories where people claim that the lunar landing never actually occured? I was implying that your contention with regards to the Americans allowing the 9/11 terrorist attacks to follow through in order to justify launching campaigns in the middle east holds about as much credibility as the people that said that Neil Armstrong never set his foot on the moon. Actually, your claim holds LESS ground now that I think about it.No, I've never heard those bogus conspiracy theories where people claim that the lunar landing never actually occured. Honestly.

[mbabenko]

What it says is that the person writing the document refuses to comment on whether or not the pro-Russian vote won the referendum, because they were not in a position to observe the referendum, and all they have to go on are Russian reports. This casts serious doubt on the outcome, and effectively makes your source a non-entity.
And that's where the second one comes in.


Oh, THAT's why they had a constitution in 1992, and THAT's why they were establishing a parliament at that time! NOW I see why Russia invaded! Democracy was taking root! All is made clear...
Oh you know, Tsarist Russia had a parliament too. Was it any good though? And come on, I think even BBC sais that there were UNCERTAINTIES as for Checheny's status (come on ask me for the source). You're not a lawer and neither am I, so we can go on arguing forever.

Ugh...I knew you were going to make me re-post them. Here they are, then, since you can't scroll up far enough to find them yourself.
You think I'm going to read all that? I know you have sources. I have sources too. We don't agree. I won't change my mind and neither will you. Great!

[offguard96]

And that's where the second one comes in.



http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/



Oh you know, Tsarist Russia had a parliament too. Was it any good though? And come on, I think even BBC sais that there were UNCERTAINTIES as for Checheny's status (come on ask me for the source). You're not a lawer and neither am I, so we can go on arguing forever.

No, I can argue for a while yet. You still need information supporting your claim that doesn't come from a newspaper that thinks people have sex with aliens all the time (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/13623_aliens.html).


You think I'm going to read all that? I know you have sources. I have sources too. We don't agree. I won't change my mind and neither will you.

A mind needs to be open to be changed. I've read your sources and refuted them. My mind is not changed, though it is open, because your dubious sources are not enough to convince even the simplest person to share your opinion.

You asked for my sources (all of which I read before posting), and now you refuse to read them. I think this speaks volumes of the nature of your opinions.

I might warn you that if you keep posting useless drivel like this again and again and again, you're just going to make yourself look stupider and stupider and stupider. Keep going if you want, though I hope a mod closes this thread soon. It's done.

[Lt(N) Jean Cyr]

I've read this entire thread (not the BBC or Pravda links however) and find both of you to be very intelligent !! (not stupider ;) )

I'm not going to lock the thread (at least not right now)... mainly because I feel it's important to keep it open.


J

[Earlam]

I admit, I started skimming about halfway through page 2, and haven't read anything indepth since.
But, what I've read has given me more than enough for whatever it is that I intend to say.


mbabanko (for pretty much everything, I suppose):

1) Refferendums are good. But they exclude the so-called "terrorists". And those "terrorists" account for a huge portion of the population. Heck, in a country of less than a million people, six-toed-bearded-ladies could make a difference. Nevermind anyone who's ****** off enough about being occupied, shelled, and bombed to shoot at a Russian every once in a while.

2) How would the Russians have kept the "terrorists" inside Grozny before the bombardment? I'm a little sketchy on the siege of Grozny (I haven't read a book on the subject of Chechnya in a few months now..... just the news), but I'm sure the Russian military would follow common sense and set up a blockade. Of course, they'd let civilians out, as you said. But how would they know who was a civilian? Unless you had a few American dollars to open their minds, you'd most likely have to prove that were not a "terrorist". And how do you prove that you are not something? You don't.
Besides that, I think Jonah's point about your infested house is pretty valid. If someone told me my home was going to be bombed whether I was in it or not because the freedom-fighters I supported were in the city, my answer would be a finger. And if they were to bomb my home and kill my friends and family, my response would be to pick up an AK and shoot at Russians.

3) Chechnya declares independence in 1991 (though not recognized, but still). I wonder why it took Russia 3 years to respond militarily? 3 years gives Chechnya a little more credibility than it would have if the response was immediate (although with their entire ill-gotten empire falling apart, I can understand how they were a little busy at the time).

4) Check out 'My Jihad' by Auklai Collins. He fought in Chechnya, saw it firsthand, and certainly isn't a big fan of the US government.
Heck, check out anything. But for the love of God, check out something more than you are now.

5) Alot earlier, you decided that the "terrorists" were mentally inferior. I'm afraid I completely disagree. Are they stupid just because they want to be independent from a regime that oppresses and kills them? Stupid because they want self-government?
If so, then I submit that I am stupid, and that you're probably stupid too.
Heck, let's all be stupid together.

6) 'The majority of people inside Chechnya are Russian subjects'. Do you mean of Russian descent?
If so, that means they were probably moved in against the will of the original population. The original population of Chechens.
If you mean by 'Russian subjects' that they are under Russia, that is all a matter of opinion. I'm sure alot of them would say they are independent of Russia. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Chechens (as in the race, not the nationality. If we can call it a nationality without inciting anything) would.

7) Holy crap...... there's just so much.....
I'm afraid I'm kinda tired, and don't want to deal with any insanely long rebuttal-posts. I'll post the rest up (opportunity pending) when I'm rested and have an hour or so to read, analyze, and respond to everything...



As a sidenote:
The Russian military did all that could be expected of them in this situation. This sorta thing isn't their specialty, but they didn't handle themselves badly.
The "terrorists" also did all that could be expected of them in their situation. What would you prefer they do, let hostages escape? Of course, we'd prefer it, but it just wouldn't happen. If that happened, the "terrorists" were dead, and they knew it. As it happens, they're dead anyways. But they died with some credibility (that they're willing to kill. Don't go crazy over the word).
The hostages also did all that could be expected of them. If you were taken hostage by a group that was perfectly willing and possibly planning to kill you, would you sit back and wait for the bullet?
The school situation ended tragically. That's the only way it could have ended.

It's unfortunate it happened at all.
But it's also unfortunate that the Russian military is just a couple steps away from systematically wiping out all the Chechens in Chechnya.

[ian]

it seems to me that plenty of you are happy to ridicule the russians.
but do any of you know the exact political situation in the region? i dont belive you do i think mbabenko knows a little bit more about whats going on. don't you.
if an uprising in quebec caused a breakaway state do ANY OF YOU think the canadian government would let it happen. im not canadian so i wudnt know how your government treats things but im 90% sure the army would be sent back in to retake the province.
the russians had every right to hold a mitlitary presence in chechnya.
as for the bombing of grozney it was a pre-emptive strike yeah people died but if it hadnt been shelled they may have been more people caught in the crossfire.

northern ireland IS part ok the u.k the u.k have a large garrison of troops there to keep the peace because there are many people that would like it to be a part of southern ireland i think this is a similar thing to whats happening in RUSSIA yet none of you have mentioned this????????????????

i think everyone that has posted on this forum should step back and think about what you and your government would do.

as for the "origioanal chechens" comment i have read plenty of books and belive that the origioanl chechens were wiped out.
meaning that the current inhabitants are in fact russians.

[piper]

Knowing the Canadian (Liberal) gov't, they would just roll over and try to suck up to Quebec if they seperated, they wouldn't even think of trying to take it back over. Anyways, what many of you seem to forget here is that the terrorists in this attack were mostly ARAB ISLAMIC JIHADISTS (caps so you can all see it) not Chechens (there were a few there). And the attack was on behalf of a FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC Chechen state, not just for Chechen independence. My sources on this are the CBC, BBC, CNN and CTV news networks (I followed this story on TV as much as I could). So this attack was not on behalf of all Chechens, just for the exremists. Yes, there were a few Chechens in there (the whole, you killed my kids so I'll kill yours story we all heard that they said) but there was a large contingent of Arab fighters there. They just seem to popping up wherever there is a terrorist attack these days don't they?

[ian]

Knowing the Canadian (Liberal) gov't, they would just roll over and try to suck up to Quebec if they seperated, they wouldn't even think of trying to take it back over. Anyways, what many of you seem to forget here is that the terrorists in this attack were mostly ARAB ISLAMIC JIHADISTS (caps so you can all see it) not Chechens (there were a few there). And the attack was on behalf of a FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC Chechen state, not just for Chechen independence. My sources on this are the CBC, BBC, CNN and CTV news networks (I followed this story on TV as much as I could). So this attack was not on behalf of all Chechens, just for the exremists. Yes, there were a few Chechens in there (the whole, you killed my kids so I'll kill yours story we all heard that they said) but there was a large contingent of Arab fighters there. They just seem to popping up wherever there is a terrorist attack these days don't they?


i think any country would try to take bak a a part of theire county had it broken away in
cluding. canada and i don't understand what you mean about the arab terorists. if they are fighting for a islamic CHECHEN state surley they are fighting for chechen independence. in any case the attack was organised by a CHECHEN commander

[Wolfmann]

Knowing the Canadian (Liberal) gov't, they would just roll over and try to suck up to Quebec if they seperated, they wouldn't even think of trying to take it back over. Anyways, what many of you seem to forget here is that the terrorists in this attack were mostly ARAB ISLAMIC JIHADISTS (caps so you can all see it) not Chechens (there were a few there). And the attack was on behalf of a FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC Chechen state, not just for Chechen independence. My sources on this are the CBC, BBC, CNN and CTV news networks (I followed this story on TV as much as I could). So this attack was not on behalf of all Chechens, just for the exremists. Yes, there were a few Chechens in there (the whole, you killed my kids so I'll kill yours story we all heard that they said) but there was a large contingent of Arab fighters there. They just seem to popping up wherever there is a terrorist attack these days don't they?


Its terrorism. You have to ask yourelf why they would take 1,000 school children and people hostage - terror. But we really need to sit back and make sure those sources are right.

Islam has taken enough of a hit as it is.

[Earlam]

Yes, the attack was perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists.
Most of the suicide attacks are, although not all.

But the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting for an independent Islamic fundamentalist Chechnya. That's still an independent Chechnya, and I expect that the Chechens don't mind as long as it works towards their long-term goal (independence). Until the Russians are gone, their differences can wait.
And many of the fighters in Chechnya are foreigners, as in, not Chechens. What's with this word "Jihadist" we're using to describe them? They're the same people we were hailing as noble freedom-fighter Mujahideen in Afghanistan. They certainly haven't changed. They see a place where Muslims are getting killed, and they see it as their duty to go kill the people doing the killing. According to their religion and beliefs, it's the right thing to do (and I myself don't disagree).
It's even the same enemy. A republic wants to break off from Russia, sets up a provisional government, and Russia moves in troops to crush it. They do so, and militias spring up all over the place, because everyone wants to bag a Russian for invading their country. I see very little difference here.

[offguard96]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1292799.stm

This explains the Arab connection.

Splintering of resistance groups according to different levels of extremism is a predictable side-effect of protracted guerrilla conflict. The same happened to the IRA in Ireland, and those fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and then against each other).

[mbabenko]

I just went back form job and saw that everyone's got something to say here. OH well, I'll answer.


No, I can argue for a while yet. You still need information supporting your claim that doesn't come from a newspaper that thinks people have sex with aliens all the time (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19...623_aliens.html)
All right, argue.


A mind needs to be open to be changed. I've read your sources and refuted them. My mind is not changed, though it is open, because your dubious sources are not enough to convince even the simplest person to share your opinion.
Well, I can't waste time looking for russian sources in english for you. If you want reliable sources hyowever, you can learn Russian and get a cable TV. Believe me they agree that the referrendum was Ok.

You asked for my sources (all of which I read before posting), and now you refuse to read them. I think this speaks volumes of the nature of your opinions.
OH MY GOD!
Which of the following contain a proof (and I say PROOF, as not a point of view) that Putin's campaign was based on war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth...nya/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1292799.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/460399.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/577525.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/739974.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm


I might warn you that if you keep posting useless drivel like this again and again and again, you're just going to make yourself look stupider and stupider and stupider. Keep going if you want, though I hope a mod closes this thread soon. It's done. Well, I'm sorry if they don't teach us enough political science on the mathematics and physics major courses, but I'm happy that there're smart people like you who use BBC to explain what's going on im my country.


1) Refferendums are good. But they exclude the so-called "terrorists". And those "terrorists" account for a huge portion of the population. Heck, in a country of less than a million people, six-toed-bearded-ladies could make a difference. Nevermind anyone who's ****** off enough about being occupied, shelled, and bombed to shoot at a Russian every once in a while.
In fact there're so many of them that they even had to engage mercinaries.


2) How would the Russians have kept the "terrorists" inside Grozny before the bombardment? I'm a little sketchy on the siege of Grozny (I haven't read a book on the subject of Chechnya in a few months now..... just the news), but I'm sure the Russian military would follow common sense and set up a blockade. Of course, they'd let civilians out, as you said. But how would they know who was a civilian? Unless you had a few American dollars to open their minds, you'd most likely have to prove that were not a "terrorist". And how do you prove that you are not something? You don't.
Besides that, I think Jonah's point about your infested house is pretty valid. If someone told me my home was going to be bombed whether I was in it or not because the freedom-fighters I supported were in the city, my answer would be a finger. And if they were to bomb my home and kill my friends and family, my response would be to pick up an AK and shoot at Russians.
They didn't want to keep them in, tey wanted them OUT. That's why theu bombed the city - they didn't want to leave.


3) Chechnya declares independence in 1991 (though not recognized, but still). I wonder why it took Russia 3 years to respond militarily? 3 years gives Chechnya a little more credibility than it would have if the response was immediate (although with their entire ill-gotten empire falling apart, I can understand how they were a little busy at the time).
Once again, RUSSIA HAD MORE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS after the change of regime.



4) Check out 'My Jihad' by Auklai Collins. He fought in Chechnya, saw it firsthand, and certainly isn't a big fan of the US government.
Heck, check out anything. But for the love of God, check out something more than you are now.
Why should I check anything at all when there're wise people such as you to educate me. I know that I'm Russian and have Russian Satellite, friends in Russia and read Russian news, but I mean EVERYONE needs someone who reads AMERICAN(ized) book about Russia and Chechnia to figure out what's REALLY going on.


5) Alot earlier, you decided that the "terrorists" were mentally inferior. I'm afraid I completely disagree. Are they stupid just because they want to be independent from a regime that oppresses and kills them? Stupid because they want self-government?
If so, then I submit that I am stupid, and that you're probably stupid too.
Heck, let's all be stupid together.
Oh I AM stupid all right. All my life I was waiting for an enlightenment to come from you and to tell me that my opinion is stupid. And yours I presume is smart, right? Anyways, here's why the terrorists are stupid:
- They brought up political demands which were obviously not possible
- They don't know how to use explosives
- They prefer to explode WITH a bomb
- Instead of promoting their cause, they just create more angry people who'd turn against them eventually.


7) Holy crap...... there's just so much.....
I'm afraid I'm kinda tired, and don't want to deal with any insanely long rebuttal-posts. I'll post the rest up (opportunity pending) when I'm rested and have an hour or so to read, analyze, and respond to everything...
Have a pleasant rest, Oh wise analizer.

[offguard96]

Well, I can't waste time looking for russian sources in english for you. If you want reliable sources hyowever, you can learn Russian and get a cable TV. Believe me they agree that the referrendum was Ok.

Oh, good, the Russians agree that the referendum held in the country they occupy is reliable. Well, at least that's settled.


Which of the following contain a proof (and I say PROOF, as not a point of view) that Putin's campaign was based on war?



Public support for Mr Putin's campaign against separatist rebels in Chechnya helped sweep him to victory in the presidential election.

Moscow intends to impose direct presidential rule on Chechnya now that its army controls Grozny and large stretches of the republic.


Instead of promoting their cause, they just create more angry people who'd turn against them eventually.

If they didn't die in the public eye, a Russian soldier or tank or missile would make them just as dead in Chechnya anyway. If they took to legitimate protesting in front of the Kremlin, it would obviously be a reapeat of Tiananmen Square, and denying it is stupid.


I'm happy that there're smart people like you who use BBC to explain what's going on im my country.

You're not being taught. You're treating this information the way a small infant treats a particularly nasty dose of cough medecine. You thrash around with righteous indignation and rhetorical scorn, never able to come up with any of your own sources (except that paper that says nothing and the Russian newspaper that reports humans having sex with Aliens). Keep the fingers in your ears while screaming, and perhaps you won't hear what we say, right?

[prettypinksailor]

I only know a little of whats going on with this i havent read the full thread yet but really how could you do this?i mean there CHILDREN for heavens sakes there the future of our countries how could you kill them?
And if these 'terrorists'or 'freedom fighters' whatever they are to be so called dont have a problem killing innocent people do you think the soldiers that are trying to get to these people will?i mean like if you want to make a stand take someone IMPORTANT hostage-now im not saying the children arent important im just saying if these ppl want certain demands cant they do it in a peaceful manor or if they had to take people hostage couldnt it be some one in like the government?

[Earlam]

Prettypinksailor.

We've gone over this before. The Russian troops in Chechnya have no problem killing Chechen children. Please explain the difference to me. I fail to see one. Children are now casualties on both sides, and the aggressors in Chechnya know that their children can die just as dead as Chechen children.
Of course, the Chechens had to commit an act of terrorism to kill kids, whereas the Russians just had to completely obliterate an entire city (/province/nation).


mbabenko.

I had a nice rest, thank you. I also went in for another day of work, so excuse me if I use the same excuse later. There's only so much I can take in my depleted state before I start bashing my head against a wall.

With regards to sources:
I think offguard has pretty much completely discredited Pravda (well, they discredited themselves, but he demonstrated it).
The BBC has, as offguard said, been pretty reliable over the last... well, since the 30s at least.
Auklai Collins is actually an American, and he hasn't 'Americanized' anything (as in, he hasn't made it a nice pretty feel-good American book. But he is an American, so of course his views represent that of an American) in his book. As I said before, he isn't a huge fan of the US government.
I've got another book for you. 'A Dirty War' by Anna Politkovskaya. She's a Russian reporter, so I don't think any American bias will come into play. I'm not sure her exact viewpoint, as I've just started the book myself, but she looks pretty evenhanded. Come, let's learn together.

Also:
You'll believe a Russian newscast (remember of course, that if the Russian government doesn't like what a news channel has to say, they get shut down. So Russian media is pretty much Russian government).
You will not believe an American newscast (the Yanks don't have a big part in this conflict, and they're as keen as anyone to kill anyone purported to be a "terrorist") (as well as having a free press).
You will not believe a British newscast (that's been reliable since before WW2) (the BBC, while a government subsidized organization, is pretty much independent).
Have we done CBC yet? Heck, I'll just assume that you'll write them off as American puppet-dogs too, so I wont' even bother.
Consider it man! Does this look like a recipe for a balanced opinion?
If every half-decent source on the entire planet but yours thinks your view is incorrect, perhaps it's not because they're wrong, but because you should re-evaluate your position.


With regards to the 'stupid' volley in my direction.
I'm glad that you've realized the error of your ways. PM me if you'd like to know the secret of life, or anything else of importance.
Of course their demands weren't possible. They didn't expect them to be met, and they didn't expect to leave the school alive.
I think that willingness to blow onesself up in order to win is pretty courageous. I sure as Hell wouldn't want to do it, and don't know if I'd be able to summon the courage to do so (failing complete desperation, when I think just about anyone would at least consider it). It's pretty much professing that they have such faith (or desperation) in their cause that they will willingly die for it. That ain't stupidity, that's courage of the first order. Perhaps a little crazy-ness mixed in, but definitely not stupidity.
Do you want the right to govern yourself, mbabenko? If so, then by your own definition, you're stupid. I freely admit to being just as stupid. Everyone, embrace the stupidity!


If they didn't die in the public eye, a Russian soldier or tank or missile would make them just as dead in Chechnya anyway. If they took to legitimate protesting in front of the Kremlin, it would obviously be a reapeat of Tiananmen Square, and denying it is stupid.

And there it is.


Whoa..... I didn't have to plead fatigue or beat my noggin with a hammer. I consider this a good night.

[spy_me]

stop complaing they did the right thing, live with it, its over...

[Earlam]

stop complaing they did the right thing, live with it, its over...

This incident is over.
But it is far from over.
It might never be over.

[mbabenko]

Oh, good, the Russians agree that the referendum held in the country they occupy is reliable. Well, at least that's settled.
Oh but NO, because we need Amercian media or BBC to tell the REAL story. When I want to be informed about an incedent that took place in Britain, I don't read lenta.ru, pravda.ru, ntv.ru, mai.ru etc. In this case I read BBC, but if something happens in Russia, BBC can go to hell.

- By the way, did I mention something about non-bullcrap sources like BBC. Ok, you want a non-pravda.ru sorce from me. Fine. I hope you can read Russian.
изменение настоящей Конституции РФ не является первоочередной задачей кандидата на пост президента РФ Владимира Путина в случае его победы на выборах. В данное время проблема состоит в отсутствии законов, дополняющих различные положения Конституции РФ, поэтому необходимо изменение не Конституции, а способов ее исполнения. Также, по словам Германа Грефа, Владимир Путин не намерен усиливать регулирующую роль государства в экономике. Усиление роли государства для Владимира Путина заключается в возврате государства в те сферы экономики, в которых оно должно традиционно присутствовать. В настоящее время Центр разрабатывает экономическую программу Владимира Путина на ближайшие 10 лет.
Anyways, the point of that, and if you don't believe me you can ask the princess or someone else who speaks Russian that the principal points of Putin's campaign consist of changing constitution on the executive level.


If they didn't die in the public eye, a Russian soldier or tank or missile would make them just as dead in Chechnya anyway. If they took to legitimate protesting in front of the Kremlin, it would obviously be a reapeat of Tiananmen Square, and denying it is stupid.
What are you talking about? Not all of them are even Chechens!


You're not being taught. You're treating this information the way a small infant treats a particularly nasty dose of cough medecine. You thrash around with righteous indignation and rhetorical scorn, never able to come up with any of your own sources (except that paper that says nothing and the Russian newspaper that reports humans having sex with Aliens). Keep the fingers in your ears while screaming, and perhaps you won't hear what we say, right?
Indeed, I'm not being taught, I think I'm being enlightened here. You want more sources in RUssian? I'll give you sorces in Russian, but you won't understand crap, so what's the point?


We've gone over this before. The Russian troops in Chechnya have no problem killing Chechen children. Please explain the difference to me.
Easy: At least Russian soldiers don't cover themselves with children and make it public once a child is dead. Palestinians and Chechens on the other hand do. And, I don't belive that Russian soldiers can just come in a village and kill women and children. (Btw, some terrorists were known to dress up as Russian soldiers and do it).


I had a nice rest, thank you. I also went in for another day of work, so excuse me if I use the same excuse later. There's only so much I can take in my depleted state before I start bashing my head against a wall.
That would explain your arguments

h my god! how you make me mad with your pravda ru bullcrap, people! The woman who has sex with aliens makes more sense to me. Anyways here you go
Наблюдательные комиссии на всех 416 участках удовлетворены ходом голосования. По последней информации, никаких серьезных нарушений в ходе референдума не зарегистрировано. Как сообщили РБК в МВД Чеченской Республики, к полудню не зафиксировано ни одной попытки срыва референдума. Во избежание каких-либо провокаций или терактов со стороны боевиков на всех избирательных пунктах приняты усиленные меры безопасности. Избирательные участки в усиленном режиме охраняются сотрудниками милиции и военнослужащими Минобороны и Внутренних войск.
That's another source that sais that the referrendum was fine. If you don't read Russian, ask someone.


Auklai Collins is actually an American, and he hasn't 'Americanized' anything But of course, he doesn't need to americanize crap when it's already American. Good!


Come, let's learn together.
Ploitkovskaya you say. I've read a couple of her articles. It's like X-files, you'll like it.


You'll believe a Russian newscast (remember of course, that if the Russian government doesn't like what a news channel has to say, they get shut down. So Russian media is pretty much Russian government).
Load of crap! I can give you references to Russian newspapers who critisize government about the war in Chechnia. That's definitely not an argument in this particular case


You'll believe a Russian newscast (remember of course, that if the Russian government doesn't like what a news channel has to say, they get shut down. So Russian media is pretty much Russian government).
You will not believe an American newscast (the Yanks don't have a big part in this conflict, and they're as keen as anyone to kill anyone purported to be a "terrorist") (as well as having a free press).
You will not believe a British newscast (that's been reliable since before WW2) (the BBC, while a government subsidized organization, is pretty much independent).
What are you talking about they're not part of the conflict!!!! Who trained Ossama (the one who gave money for these attacks)? Their grandma? Of course they want Russians to look bad rather then admit that they've screwed up. And BBC reflects very well its country's policy to blindly follow US.


Consider it man! Does this look like a recipe for a balanced opinion?
If every half-decent source on the entire planet but yours thinks your view is incorrect, perhaps it's not because they're wrong, but because you should re-evaluate your position.

Well how many countries would rather support US then Russia? I bet a lot. And I mean COME ON! It happened in Russia! What can be better then Russian sources? They were there ALL the time.

Are you telling me that I have to rely on Americans and Brits to learn what's goig on in Russia? Is that what you call balanced?


I'm glad that you've realized the error of your ways. PM me if you'd like to know the secret of life, or anything else of importance
Perhaps I should, even though I'll start with the meaning of sarcasm.


I think that willingness to blow onesself up in order to win is pretty courageous. I sure as Hell wouldn't want to do it, and don't know if I'd be able to summon the courage to do so (failing complete desperation, when I think just about anyone would at least consider it). It's pretty much professing that they have such faith (or desperation) in their cause that they will willingly die for it. That ain't stupidity, that's courage of the first order. Perhaps a little crazy-ness mixed in, but definitely not stupidity.
I think we should give that to the terrorists. It sure is courageous to put a suicide belt on a woman. I wonder how come these courageous men didn't wear suicide belts? Maybe you can enlighten me, oh wise spirit of justice? This faith is indeed impressing.

[Earlam]

Oh but NO, because we need Amercian media or BBC to tell the REAL story. When I want to be informed about an incedent that took place in Britain, I don't read lenta.ru, pravda.ru, ntv.ru, mai.ru etc. In this case I read BBC, but if something happens in Russia, BBC can go to hell.

- By the way, did I mention something about non-bullcrap sources like BBC. Ok, you want a non-pravda.ru sorce from me. Fine. I hope you can read Russian.
Anyways, the point of that, and if you don't believe me you can ask the princess or someone else who speaks Russian that the principal points of Putin's campaign consist of changing constitution on the executive level.

Being Russians, of course they'll take the Russian view. So of course, if you use only Russian sources, your view will not consider the Chechen view.
The US and Brit news sources represent a third party.



Easy: At least Russian soldiers don't cover themselves with children and make it public once a child is dead. Palestinians and Chechens on the other hand do. And, I don't belive that Russian soldiers can just come in a village and kill women and children. (Btw, some terrorists were known to dress up as Russian soldiers and do it).

Of course the Russians wouldn't make it public when a kid is killed! That's not the kind of PR they need for an already internationally-unpopular war in Chechnya.
Where were we talking about Palestinians here? Did I miss something, or is this just a plain bias against any Muslim with a gun?
I've read more than one account of Russian soldiers doing just that (not to mention the rape and et cetera).
I don't doubt that some Chechens would dress as Russians to commit atrocities. Not every Chechen is a saint, and there is a pretty big criminal underground. But even if this did happen (assuming it did), and assuming it was anti-Russian fighters (not criminals looking for an easy way to avoid blame), it wouldn't happen if the Russians hadn't demonstrated like behaviour, as it would have no credibility.



That would explain your arguments

I'm glad it would. What's your excuse?


h my god! how you make me mad with your pravda ru bullcrap, people! The woman who has sex with aliens makes more sense to me. Anyways here you go
That's another source that sais that the referrendum was fine. If you don't read Russian, ask someone.

In the future, if you want to use something in another language as a reference, translate it, or it's meaningless. AltaVista has a neat little feature on there called Babbelfish (or something like that).
When I'm done, I'll check out what your unnamed source has to say.


But of course, he doesn't need to americanize crap when it's already American. Good!

So now anything American is automatically discounted? What in God's Name are you basing this on? Please!



Ploitkovskaya you say. I've read a couple of her articles. It's like X-files, you'll like it.

And by X-files you mean conspiracy theories and such, I assume?
I can't wait for the doozie like, say, that the Chechens use Russian weapons (where'd they get 'em? They haven't killed that many Russian soldiers). Or that the Russian government invaded on the pretext of several explosions it blamed on Chechen terrorists, even though no Chechens (or anybody) claimed responsibility (that's the point of terrorism, isn't it? To show people that you can and will blow things up to get your point across? What's the point if there is no point? I submit that there is none)?
Whoa..... sounds like some good stuff. I can't wait.



What are you talking about they're not part of the conflict!!!! Who trained Ossama (the one who gave money for these attacks)? Their grandma? Of course they want Russians to look bad rather then admit that they've screwed up. And BBC reflects very well its country's policy to blindly follow US.

The Americans know full well who trained Osama. And while he is involved some in Chechnya, and probably alot more in the terrorist attacks on Chechnya's behalf, he ain't the only one. And seeing as they're now trying to get Osama and his guys, I don't think they'd side with him over Russia.



Well how many countries would rather support US then Russia? I bet a lot. And I mean COME ON! It happened in Russia! What can be better then Russian sources? They were there ALL the time.

Are you telling me that I have to rely on Americans and Brits to learn what's goig on in Russia? Is that what you call balanced?

As I said before, the Russian media is, in most cases, the Russian government (I haven't read your independents, but I'll assume they exist). Even if not, they're still Russian, and they're directly involved in the conflict.
If you were in North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, would you blindly accept everything the North Vietnamese press told you? That's pretty much what you're doing.



I think we should give that to the terrorists. It sure is courageous to put a suicide belt on a woman. I wonder how come these courageous men didn't wear suicide belts? Maybe you can enlighten me, oh wise spirit of justice? This faith is indeed impressing.

Oh, yes. There has never in the history of the world been a male suicide bomber. Perhaps you haven't heard? Female suicide bombers are becoming more common, but I think that males are still in the majority (although I'm sure the gap is closing pretty fast). You're also implying that the women had no idea what they were doing. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and they had pretty decent reasons why. Check out the worldpress link offguard posted earlier, it should help enlighten you.

[offguard96]

if something happens in Russia, BBC can go to hell.

So, the best source is always domestic? Like the Iraqi information minister, who insisted that Saddam was winning the war, as American and British tanks swept the city?

Usually, the best source is one that isn't emotionally or politically involved.


the principal points of Putin's campaign

He still promised, in his campaign, to deal with Chechnya by force. Just like Yeltsin before him. Of course "constitutional reform" was probably a part of it, just like money for hospitals or other feel-good stuff like that, but the "sexy" part of his campaign has always been the war in Chechnya.


What are you talking about? Not all of them are even Chechens!

Well, then logically I was talking about the Chechens, right?


Indeed, I'm not being taught, I think I'm being enlightened here.

You're being silly here. The argument is over, because arguments are exchangs of ideas. I appreciate that Russian news sources claim the referendum was pro-Russian, but I give more weight to a third-party news source that is not Russian, because you must attempt to understand that Russian news sources have a vested interest in toeing the party line.

Yes, the Soviet Union is over. There is no more USSR, but the top members of your government were more often than not top officials in the USSR, and the thinking of that era will obviously carry over into this one. Putin is ex-KGB. Rebuilding the physical nation isn't the hard part, it's changing so many indoctrinated minds that's proving to be the difficult part in Russia. So, that's why I'd rather read something other than a Russian news source to get information about Chechnya.

[mbabenko]

Being Russians, of course they'll take the Russian view. So of course, if you use only Russian sources, your view will not consider the Chechen view.
The US and Brit news sources represent a third party.
Of course a third party is the most reliable source one can find (btw, it's NOT a third party). As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anything but an ANTI-RUSSIAN point of view in BBC.


I've read more than one account of Russian soldiers doing just that (not to mention the rape and et cetera).
I don't doubt that some Chechens would dress as Russians to commit atrocities. Not every Chechen is a saint, and there is a pretty big criminal underground. But even if this did happen (assuming it did), and assuming it was anti-Russian fighters (not criminals looking for an easy way to avoid blame), it wouldn't happen if the Russians hadn't demonstrated like behaviour, as it would have no credibility.
Oh so not every Chechen is a saint!!! And all Russians should be saints then? I admit that there might have been cases of murder/rape and that kind of stuff, but these are as I said individual crimes of soldiers. I don't think that a general would order his squad to kill kids. Come on! Some common sense! Many more victims were just collateral dammages, which exist in any war.


In the future, if you want to use something in another language as a reference, translate it, or it's meaningless. AltaVista has a neat little feature on there called Babbelfish (or something like that).
When I'm done, I'll check out what your unnamed source has to say.
If you translate it with google, you'll get a set of words. Therefore I include a sentence which describes the source and if you don't believe me, you're welcome to use google yourself.


So now anything American is automatically discounted? What in God's Name are you basing this on? Please! I think I remember you discounting Russian sources because they're Russian and supposively don't include another point of view.


The Americans know full well who trained Osama. And while he is involved some in Chechnya, and probably alot more in the terrorist attacks on Chechnya's behalf, he ain't the only one. And seeing as they're now trying to get Osama and his guys, I don't think they'd side with him over Russia.
Well that's the major difference in our views. You say he's not the only one, and I say that he was one of responsible people. That perfectly explains why Americans want Russia to look bad and put on anti-Russian reports. What happened in that school is partially their fault and they don't want people to see it.


As I said before, the Russian media is, in most cases, the Russian government (I haven't read your independents, but I'll assume they exist). Even if not, they're still Russian, and they're directly involved in the conflict.
If you were in North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, would you blindly accept everything the North Vietnamese press told you? That's pretty much what you're doing.
Of course, in the same way as you accept BBC and CNN, which is OBVIOUSLY on the opposite side of the line. It's NOT A THIRD PARTY.


Oh, yes. There has never in the history of the world been a male suicide bomber. Perhaps you haven't heard? Female suicide bombers are becoming more common, but I think that males are still in the majority (although I'm sure the gap is closing pretty fast). You're also implying that the women had no idea what they were doing. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and they had pretty decent reasons why. Check out the worldpress link offguard posted earlier, it should help enlighten you.
I haven't heard about a CHECHEN male suicide bombers. (I don't deny the posibility though and it's not important either because I was talking about THIS PARTICULAR CASE). And of course they knew what they were doing. One of the blonds just randomly decided to explode in the gym.

[mbabenko]

Usually, the best source is one that isn't emotionally or politically involved. So if you've read the above, you'll see that BBC and CNN are definitely not such sources.


He still promised, in his campaign, to deal with Chechnya by force. Just like Yeltsin before him. Of course "constitutional reform" was probably a part of it, just like money for hospitals or other feel-good stuff like that, but the "sexy" part of his campaign has always been the war in Chechnya.
So? It wasn't a base of his campaign now, was it?


Well, then logically I was talking about the Chechens, right?
Then perhaps you can explain what were the others doing there?

and once again BBC, CNN, Americans and Brits ARE NOT THIRD PARTY.

[offguard96]

So if you've read the above, you'll see that BBC and CNN are definitely not such sources.

They don't have any motive to lie. They do have motive to report properly, because if they don't, people will ignore them. Russian sources, on the other hand, have a very good reason to lie...the government will shut them down if they don't.


So? It wasn't a base of his campaign now, was it?

Ugh...that's EXACTLY what it was. It was a BASE of his campaign, because it was one of his CAMPAIGN PROMISES.


Then perhaps you can explain what were the others doing there?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1292799.stm

This explains the Arab connection.

Splintering of resistance groups according to different levels of extremism is a predictable side-effect of protracted guerrilla conflict. The same happened to the IRA in Ireland, and those fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and then against each other).


and once again BBC, CNN, Americans and Brits ARE NOT THIRD PARTY.

They are by definition a third party, because they are not involved. How many times to we have to hold your hand as we walk you through such absolutely basic concepts?

[mbabenko]

Look! Sorry for triple-posting, but Putin did a lot of great things in Russia from solving some of its major problems to improving economy. The war was probably what made him lose voices that he lost, because no one likes war. No parent wants to send his child to die in Chechnia.

[mbabenko]

They don't have any motive to lie. They do have motive to report properly, because if they don't, people will ignore them. Russian sources, on the other hand, have a very good reason to lie...the government will shut them down if they don't.
I told the motive. They're partially responsible for what happened.


Splintering of resistance groups according to different levels of extremism is a predictable side-effect of protracted guerrilla conflict. The same happened to the IRA in Ireland, and those fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and then against each other).
That doesn't explain crap. It sounds like they don't have support of population and engage mercinaries.


They are by definition a third party, because they are not involved. How many times to we have to hold your hand as we walk you through such absolutely basic concepts? Maybe you should revise your concepts then

[offguard96]

They're partially responsible for what happened.

How, in the name of all holy CRAP, is the BBC in any way responsible for RUSSIA invading a SOVEREIGN NATION, a DECADE AGO?


That doesn't explain crap. It sounds like they don't have support of population and engage mercinaries.

.
Better hang on, little buddy, I'll walk you through it, one step at a time.

A decade ago, when Russia invaded, the war was about sovereignty. Over time, and as Chechens died by the thousands, many of the fighters, as they got madder and madder, became more and more fanatical. As with any protracted guerrilla campaign (look these words up, please, before you respond again), the once-unified rebel forces were split into different groups, based mostly on their differing levels of committment to different things. All the ones who supported democracy went one way, the radical Islamists went another, and the absolute wackos went yet another way (this is just a basic illustration...the actual makeup of the different groups, and even the existence of some groups, is unknown, but the idea is solid).

Now, the Arab connection. Saudi Arabia funds the Islamic fundamentalists in the fight, because it wants them to win. Al Qaeda (or whoever you want to believe is behind it) sends operatives to help them, because they have experience fighting Russians in Afghanistan, over the course of 20 years. This is the group that attacked the school.

Still, though, the root of the problem, and the cause of these evils, is the Russian invasion and subjugation and murder of the Chechen people. PLEASE stop tripping over your preconceptions, and TRY to see things as they are.

[mbabenko]

How, in the name of all holy CRAP, is the BBC in any way responsible for RUSSIA invading a SOVEREIGN NATION, a DECADE AGO?
Americans - for training Ossama
Brits are interested in promoting American cause because they depend on Americans.
Chechnia was never sovereign. Even Bits admit that there were disagreements regarding its status. To Russia, it was like a province with special status (like Quebec to Canada).


Still, though, the root of the problem, and the cause of these evils, is the Russian invasion and subjugation and murder of the Chechen people. PLEASE stop tripping over your preconceptions, and TRY to see things as they are.

So Saudi Arabia supports terrorists because it wants them to control a Russian province, but the guilty side is Russia because it wants to.... keep its province?

[offguard96]

Americans - for training Ossama
Brits are interested in promoting American cause because they depend on Americans.
Chechnia was never sovereign. Even Bits admit that there were disagreements regarding its status. To Russia, it was like a province with special status (like Quebec to Canada).

Osama would have nothing to do with it if Russia had never invaded. Get your head out from wherever it's stuck, and see that.

The BBC does not depend on Americans.

The "disagreements" regarding its status involve invasion by the Russian army. Are you so stupid as to not see what that's referring to?


So Saudi Arabia supports terrorists because it wants them to control a Russian province, but the guilty side is Russia because it wants to.... keep its province?

Jesus H. Christ you simply refuse to think, don't you?

Russia invaded a SOVEREIGN NATION in 1994 when it attacked Chechnya. The Chechen rebels who fought off the Russians managed to hold their own for a while, but they began to splinter off into different groups. Some of these groups were islamic fundamentalists, and these are the groups Saudi Arabia funds in order to help Islamic brothers in arms. This is where the money and guns and fighters are starting to come from. As more and more of the CHECHENS in this group are killed by Russians, more and more fighters have to be found somewhere, and Arab terrorist networks are a perfect source.

If Russians had never started INVADING AND MURDERING AND RAPING AND TORTURING AND PILLAGING AND BOMBING Chechnya, none of these men would have anything to fight for, because they'd be free, and they'd be able to get their Islamic point across a different way. For example in the CHECHEN PARLIAMENT THAT WAS COMING INTO BEING WHEN RUSSIA INVADED.

[mbabenko]

Osama would have nothing to do with it if Russia had never invaded. Get your head out from wherever it's stuck, and see that.
Would have, would not have, who cares, HE DID.

The BBC does not depend on Americans.
Why sure, and neither does Britain.

The "disagreements" regarding its status involve invasion by the Russian army. Are you so stupid as to not see what that's referring to?
Perhaps, you shall enlighten me, you who seems to understand how it really is.


Russia invaded a SOVEREIGN NATION in 1994 when it attacked Chechnya. The Chechen rebels who fought off the Russians managed to hold their own for a while, but they began to splinter off into different groups. Some of these groups were islamic fundamentalists, and these are the groups Saudi Arabia funds in order to help Islamic brothers in arms. This is where the money and guns and fighters are starting to come from. As more and more of the CHECHENS in this group are killed by Russians, more and more fighters have to be found somewhere, and Arab terrorist networks are a perfect source.
Chechnia was never a souvereign nation. And I say it fo the 100th time now. I can proclaim a souvereignty of my butt and elect a presedent, it wouldn't make out of it a country.


If Russians had never started INVADING AND MURDERING AND RAPING AND TORTURING AND PILLAGING AND BOMBING Chechnya, none of these men would have anything to fight for, because they'd be free, and they'd be able to get their Islamic point across a different way. For example in the CHECHEN PARLIAMENT THAT WAS COMING INTO BEING WHEN RUSSIA INVADED.
Load of crap! The INVADING AND MURDERING AND RAPING AND TORTURING AND PILLAGING AND BOMBING was never a part of Russian policy. As I sais these are individual crimes half of which are caused by the rebels and the other half by soldiers who must be judged as criminals and who by the way aren't any worse then some Americans in Iraq. And stop talking about the parliament! There never was any parliament, it was only a project. There wasn't going to be any parliament (even though it's not important).

[Earlam]

We obviously disagree on basic principle here, so there isn't all that much to say.

Oh -- but.
Interesting little fact..... the last time that international observers put an unquestionable stamp of approval on a democratic process in Chechnya was when the Chechens overwhelmingly elected a seperatist president. As soon as he was installed, Russia invaded.
So the conflict in Chechnya was, at least in 1994, a war of democracy (Chechnya) versus oppression (Russia).

Nothing you've said has justified it.
Nothing you say can justify it.


Now Chechnya's 'president' (why is he a president if the country isn't independent?) is the handpicked Russian candidate. He won by a huge majority. Why the change of heart with the Chechen electorate?
I'm not omniscient, but my guess would be that the Chechen electorate went from <the Chechen population> to <the Russian-Chechens/the pro-Russian Chechens>.

[offguard96]

Would have, would not have, who cares, HE DID.

Yeah, and my point is that it's Russia's own damn fault.


Perhaps, you shall enlighten me, you who seems to understand how it really is.

No, there's no enlightening you. You're denser than a black hole, and the only difference between you and a black hole is that a black hole seems to be able to RETAIN what has been flung at it, usually the FIRST TIME it's been flung.


Chechnia was never a souvereign nation.

Yeah, it was. We've been trying to help you tie up all the loose ends you can't seem to stop tripping over for a while now, and you're no closer to a solution. Just figure something out, like a mnemonic memory ruse or something, so you can remember AT LEAST 10% of the information we repeatedly pummel you with, and maybe we'll get somewhere, in a week or two.


I can proclaim a souvereignty of my butt and elect a presedent, it wouldn't make out of it a country.

Depends how big it is, and how determined you are. It'd certainly be better off, in terms of leadership, than it's anatomical and functional opposite.


Load of crap!

If Russian soldiers have no problem using top-secret gases to put a whole theater of RUSSIAN CITIZENS to sleep, in MOSCOW, what problem do you think they would have with brutalizing people who want to separate from Russia?

Also, the "loads of crap" are in fact "substantiated and well documented loads of crap". A Russian woman even wrote all about it, after she went to Chechnya HERSELF: http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm

I post it in the increasingly futile hope that you might actually be able to learn something new. This definitely will be something new for you, because you've obviously never bothered to read it before. Please have the decency to read it this time. If, however, in reading your responses over the next, oh, one or two posts, it becomes clear that you've made no attempt to learn a damned thing from all of this, then I'll simply re-post it, again and again, with ever-simpler explanations for you to be able to understand what it's all about.

[Tomtom]

Slow down on the personal insults - deserved or not.

[mbabenko]

Now Chechnya's 'president' (why is he a president if the country isn't independent?) is the handpicked Russian candidate. He won by a huge majority. Why the change of heart with the Chechen electorate?
I'm not omniscient, but my guess would be that the Chechen electorate went from <the Chechen population> to <the Russian-Chechens/the pro-Russian Chechens>.
Oh, I see, so the Russian government managed to change over 3/4 of Chechen population in 3 years. Wow! Now that's one logical conclusion.


No, there's no enlightening you. You're denser than a black hole, and the only difference between you and a black hole is that a black hole seems to be able to RETAIN what has been flung at it, usually the FIRST TIME it's been flung.
Euh, I don't get it. A black hole deviates light towards itself. I am a black hole. Therefore, I can't be enlightened?


Yeah, it was. We've been trying to help you tie up all the loose ends you can't seem to stop tripping over for a while now, and you're no closer to a solution. Just figure something out, like a mnemonic memory ruse or something, so you can remember AT LEAST 10% of the information we repeatedly pummel you with, and maybe we'll get somewhere, in a week or two.
Well, as a matter of fact your point of view is not the only one on Earth, and seen from my side it's completely wrong, but that's beside the point. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I won't change my views.


Depends how big it is, and how determined you are. It'd certainly be better off, in terms of leadership, than it's anatomical and functional opposite.
Now about my butt. I appreciate your concerns about its size, but don't worry it's big enough for your being able to kiss it. One more thing, what's a functional opposite of a butt? Are you referring to an organ that takes crap back in? Sorry, I don't have those. I don't even want to think what were you referring to talking about the anatomical opposite.

If Russian soldiers have no problem using top-secret gases to put a whole theater of RUSSIAN CITIZENS to sleep, in MOSCOW, what problem do you think they would have with brutalizing people who want to separate from Russia?
Soldiers... no problem at all. As I said, some of them are criminals and must be judged, but it's NOT THE POLICY.


I'm sorry I've read your story and didn't notice any documented proof. I felt like buying a bag of air while reading it.What it DOES proof is that these people really are screwed up in the head ans that instead of taking her brother they should've taken her. But other then that, I didn't amke any relevant reflections.

[offguard96]

Euh, I don't get it. A black hole deviates light towards itself. I am a black hole. Therefore, I can't be enlightened?

That's my point. We keep throwing enlightening sources your way, and you refuse to reciprocate with anything approaching even the dimmest glow.


Well, as a matter of fact your point of view is not the only one on Earth, and seen from my side it's completely wrong

You're just being a contrary mule now. All you have to cling to is "I know it's wrong!" whereas we have sources, in spades. Don't ask me to post them again for you. You should be smart enough to have figured out the scrollbar by now, especially given my description.


your being able to kiss it

I've had more fun kicking it relentlessly over the course of the past four pages.


One more thing, what's a functional opposite of a butt? Are you referring to an organ that takes crap back in? Sorry, I don't have those. I don't even want to think what were you referring to talking about the anatomical opposite.

Congratulations, the rest of the world got the joke. It's your HEAD, buddy. Your BUTT is smarter than your HEAD. Simple enough? I hope to God it is, though I fear not.


Soldiers... no problem at all. As I said, some of them are criminals and must be judged, but it's NOT THE POLICY.

Look! NEW SOURCES!




By Kim Murphy

Znamenskoye, Russia - It was 6 a.m. when Russian soldiers hoisted themselves over the wall, crashed through the window and broke down the front door. Their quarries were still asleep.

Shouting, shoving and kicking, the soldiers pushed 67-year-old Khavazh Semiyev and his wife into a truck waiting outside, then went back for the others - his two sons and two nephews, his son's wife, his 52-year-old sister. Then - and Mr. Semiyev couldn't believe his old eyes - they went back for his grandchildren: Mansur, 11, Malkhazni, 9, and Mamed, 7.

The family was driven in their night clothes and socks through the empty streets of Chechnya to the Russian army's command centre at Khankala. There, the men were forced to their knees, their heads to the ground. Sacks were pulled over their heads, and their hands were tied behind their backs. For the next 24 hours, anyone who moved from that position got kicked.

An estimated 40 family members of senior Chechen rebel leaders were assembled at Khankala from Thursday, a day after the hostage seizure in Beslan, until Saturday, the day after it ended.

Mr. Semiyev's daughter, Kusama, is the wife of Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov. Around him were assembled the entire extended families of Mr. Maskhadov, the former Chechen president, and of Chechen warlords Shamil Basayev and Doku Umarov.

"We figured they wanted to exchange us for the hostages in Beslan," Mr. Semiyev said.

Officially, the Russian government says it was to protect the Chechen families' lives. A statement from Russia's operations headquarters in the Northern Caucasus said Russian forces obtained intelligence that rebel leaders planned to kill several of their own relatives, and then accuse Russian law enforcement agencies of murdering them.

Mr. Maskhadov's spokesman in London, Akhmad Zakayev, said Russian authorities were trying to inspire terror in the terrorists. "They were following the standard practice developed almost a century ago by the Bolsheviks and carried on by Stalin, who believed that every single act of terror should be responded to by an even bigger, more horrendous, more terrifying terrorist act," Mr. Zakayev said. "According to this practice, it is necessary to shock terrorists, and let them know that under no condition will you agree to negotiate with them."

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

So much for moral superiority, and your claim that it was not Russian policy to go after Chechen children.

Here is a report confirming EXACTLY what I've said from the beginning, regarding motives:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1298075,00.html

[piper]

Keep going guys, this is greatly interesting reading. Except for one thing, mbabenko, you haven't really quoted any ACTUAL sources that we can go read, while your opposition has quoted a few. Please do so so we are better able to undertsand your position, because right now you are like a broken record player, pull up some sources and whatnot because right now, its 1-0 in favour of offguard96. I don't really have a point of view in this, terrorists are terrorists but this Chechen thing is a reall cluster...you know the rest. Kinda like Russia's second Vietnam (USSR and Afghanistan was the first).

[S Urbanoski]

If you can't play nice, don't post.

[mbabenko]

Well piper actually you can read all the sources I posted and I hope you'll excuse me, but I posted them only once , because I don't like to repeat myself. Unfortunately that's what the discussion is all about :eyeroll:


That's my point. We keep throwing enlightening sources your way, and you refuse to reciprocate with anything approaching even the dimmest glow.Oh I see exactly what you're talking about, but I have my point of view and my sources are no worse then yours. Having sex with aliens is as much of a load of crap as Checheny's being souveraign.



You're just being a contrary mule now. All you have to cling to is "I know it's wrong!" whereas we have sources, in spades. Don't ask me to post them again for you. You should be smart enough to have figured out the scrollbar by now, especially given my description.
Thinking that you're wrong = being a mule. Wow! You must be the only person on Earth who's entitled to have an opinion. I'm stupid because I can provide sources that contradict your pro-American BBC propaganda. I see.


So much for moral superiority, and your claim that it was not Russian policy to go after Chechen children.
All right, so how is that worse then killing children? It's normal for a parent of a killed child to go to Checheny and do the best he can to hunt the terrorist leaders and their families, and if Russians had info that it was going to happen, it was perfectly normal and even generous of them to save these people. Now there have been explosions at school, soldiers are angry. Of course they were not going to put them in a 5 stars hotel, all right, they got kicked a couple of times (I would kick the crap out of them by the way), but at least they're alive. I think these people should rather be grateful.

[offguard96]

Well piper actually you can read all the sources I posted and I hope you'll excuse me, but I posted them only once , because I don't like to repeat myself. Unfortunately that's what the discussion is all about

Mbabenko's sources, to sum up:

1) a U.S. State department memo that in fact helps me to prove my point about the state of referendums in Chechnya
2) Pravda.ru (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/)
3) Things in Russian, not even barely translated (and therefore absolutely useless to this discussion)

My sources so far: Well, we've had them repeated enough times now. But, to summate (those that I can remember offhand):
http://www.guardian.co.uk
The Los Angeles Times (print Edition)
http://www.worldpressreview.org
http://www.bbc.co.uk

The reason I've posted my sources so many times now:


Can I have a reference?

Do you have sources?

Where are the sources I've asked for?

Do you have sources?

Which of the following contain a proof (and I say PROOF, as not a point of view) that Putin's campaign was based on war?

You get what you ask for, mbabenko. Don't keep asking and asking and asking for sources, and then accuse me of running in circles. I'd like to move on with this discussion, but you always get hung up on the simplest things, for example:

-Chechnya was a sovereign nation (declared in 1991, constitution in 1992) by the time Russia invaded in 1994
-Russian soldiers kill Chechen children, and have killed one tenth of the population of Chechnya
-Given that Chechnya is sovereign and many Chechen children die in Russian hands, it is only inevitable that acts of revenge against Russian civilians would take place
-Your sources suck

There are others, but I think I've made them abundantly clear throughout this thread.


I'm stupid because I can provide sources that contradict

Pravda.ru is not a real source. If they were, they probably wouldn't have so many stories of Aliens having sex with humans (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/13623_aliens.html), UFOs landing, Ghosts being photographed, etc. etc. etc. I have yet to see one credible source from you.


All right, so how is that worse then killing children?

These are the ones that lived. The ones who did not, over the past ten years, can never tell their stories. But, you can find it, AGAIN, at one of the links I've posted before:
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm


I think these people should rather be grateful.

Are you Stalin's son or something? You think that unarmed Chechen civilians should be grateful for being taken by Russian soldiers in the night, tied up, with bags on their heads, and made to lie still (kicked if they moved) for three days? What are you, sick?

[Tomtom]

If you can't play nice, don't post.



This is the threads second warning...

Any more "crap" and you can find another place to play.

[Earlam]

mbabenko, I didn't say the Russians completely changed the composition of the Chechen population (although with all the deaths and refugees, the composition of the population has definitely been changed). What I said was that they changed the composition of the voters. Instead of representing the general views of the Chechens, the elections will represent the general views of those Chechens that are allowed to vote.

mbabenko, please make a post summarizing all of your sources. offguard has done so repeatedly for you, and you might even swing someone your way.
(Oh, and please, in English. Most on here have Russian that's more than a little rusty).


Update: 'A Dirty War' by Anna Politkovskaya is turning out to be a pretty darn good book. mbabenko, you might even want to check it out. The author doesn't seem pro-seperation. She even seems anti-rebel (although also anti-Russian-forces-in-Chechnya). Since she doesn't seem to be a big fan of either side, I think I'd rate her a creditable source.

[sgt4life]

Guys, you all have some good points and there is a great debate going on here. The only problem is, everyone who wants to read this has to sort through all your crap to find the good stuff. Personal attacks, insults, sarcasm... It's not helping you make your points, it's only hindering you. Please quit it.

[Lt(N) Jean Cyr]

Rules of the Realm (apparently they bear repeating).

Actively Listen (read)

Speak for yourself only.

Challenge ideas, not people.

Do not Judge.



If you can't do that, then don't post.

J

[mbabenko]

Instead of representing the general views of the Chechens, the elections will represent the general views of those Chechens that are allowed to vote. So you mean that they've only allowed to vote those who were supporting them? That sounds like a great idea! :) Anyways, I didn't get any info about Russians' not allowing citizens with valid documents to vote. If you have valid sources, I'd be delighted to read them.

I don't doubt that Russians don't behave in Chechnya, however unfortunately, I'm trying to concentrate on more classical litterature for the time being.

ALL RIGHT PEOPLE AND NOW WHAT YOU'VE BEEN IMPATIENTLY WAITING FOR....
.... My sources.
Mr. Guard didn't know that there was a referendum in Chechnya.
I gave him the http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/19893.htm to show that even US recognizes that the referrendum took place.
Then Mr. Guard said that this link actually supports HIS point of view for some reason involving americans not being able to say whether it was a democratic referrendum or not. I was ready for that and gave him a source that sais that YES, it was democratic.
http://english.pravda.ru/region/2003/03/24/44939.html
Unfortunately, because this newspaper contained an article about a woman pretending to have sex with aliens, he considered it not valid (not to mention that his source (BBC) also has an alien section, but he finds it more convenient)

Here's another source, mr guard, and there won't be any aliens having sex in this one.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/23/russia.chechnya.ap/
(I know it's CNN, but you want it in English, people)

After that, I gave Russian sources to prove that the war in Chechnya isn't what made Putin to win the elections and another one confirming what I've just said about the electoins being legitimate.
- http://www.chelny.ru/rnews.phtml?id=/news/daythemes/2003/03/23/23153243_bod.shtml
- http://www.utro.ru/news/economics/2000/03/10/20000310131222.shtml?2000/03/10


Pravda.ru is not a real source. If they were, they probably wouldn't have so many stories of Aliens having sex with humans (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19...623_aliens.html), UFOs landing, Ghosts being photographed, etc. etc. etc. I have yet to see one credible source from you.
BBC has an alien section! Heeeeey I know, it must be because it's not a real source!


These are the ones that lived. The ones who did not, over the past ten years, can never tell their stories. But, you can find it, AGAIN, at one of the links I've posted before:
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1657.cfm
This source is a bag of air. What it proves is, as I said before that
- These people are really screwed up in the head
- The soldiers should've taken her instead


-Chechnya was a sovereign nation (declared in 1991, constitution in 1992) by the time Russia invaded in 1994
This souvereignty was found illegal and the comstitution was abolished by their own president in 1999.

-Russian soldiers kill Chechen children, and have killed one tenth of the population of Chechnya
Children as well as 1/10 population died as collateral damages or victims of individual crimes and not as targets for attacks.


-Given that Chechnya is sovereign and many Chechen children die in Russian hands, it is only inevitable that acts of revenge against Russian civilians would take place
Chechnia is definitely not sovereign after 1999 (before that there were disagreements), now it's certain.

[/quote]-Your sources suck[/quote]
Who are you to decide?

[offguard96]

Mr. Guard

Please read my signature.


to show that even US recognizes that the referrendum took place.

Nobody thinks that it never took place. All I said what that since that source of yours refuses to give any comment on the RUSSIAN claims of whatever results, it is a useless source.


I was ready for that and gave him a source

You gave me pravda.ru. Again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/


BBC has an alien section!

The BBC, for the third time now, presents UFOs and aliens as a question, a "what if?". Pravda.ru presents it as a fact. Again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/


Here's another source


Security concerns kept some key observer organizations away.

That says it all, though I am relieved that you're FINALLY coming up with more sources than the Alien-Sex website and one US document that supports my claims.


This source is a bag of air.

No it isn't, it's an eyewitness account of what's going on in Chechnya. You're not going to claim you're better informed than someone who's been there, are you?


This souvereignty was found illegal

How is sovereignty illegal?


Children as well as 1/10 population died as collateral damages or victims of individual crimes and not as targets for attacks.

100 000 Chechens have died as a result of the Russian invasion, bombing, shelling, and machine-gunning of Chechnya.


Chechnia is definitely not sovereign after 1999 (before that there were disagreements), now it's certain.

Source? Also, if Chechnya was sovereign from 1991 till 1994 (which it was), and then it was invaded by Russia, and now it is no longer Sovereign, that makes Russia an invading, occupying, oppressing force.


Who are you to decide?

I'm someone who's decided your sources suck. There's really no other way to describe it. This last post of yours is the first batch of real sources you've given us, aside from Pravda.ru...and do I really need to go on about Pravda.ru anymore?

[Earlam]

So you mean that they've only allowed to vote those who were supporting them? That sounds like a great idea! :) Anyways, I didn't get any info about Russians' not allowing citizens with valid documents to vote. If you have valid sources, I'd be delighted to read them.

CNN says that 79% of eligible voters cast a vote.
Who's an eligible voter?
Do the refugees without (and even with) papers count?

What about the thousands of occupying Russian soldiers that have cast votes in the Chechen referendum?
Occupying soldiers voting on the fate of those whose country they occupy?
Seriously?



This source is a bag of air. What it proves is, as I said before that
- These people are really screwed up in the head
- The soldiers should've taken her instead

Ah. The Russians are perfectly justified in making hundreds of young men disappear (or turn up dead, or something of that nature), but she isn't justified in seeking vengeance by blowing some Russians up?
I can see how one would object to both, but to object to just one (when they are so clearly interrelated)?

[mbabenko]

The BBC, for the third time now, presents UFOs and aliens as a question, a "what if?". Pravda.ru presents it as a fact. Again, http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/
HELLO!!! It's a UFO SECTION meaning that "what if" is automaticly implied!!! The same thing is

Oh my god!!!!

Documentary following a group of American missionaries as they work on updating a film about the life of Jesus, made 25 years ago, in order to target a Muslim audience. They seem to present the existance of god as a fact!!!!!!! You know what it means.


That says it all, though I am relieved that you're FINALLY coming up with more sources than the Alien-Sex website and one US document that supports my claims.
Actually I was referring to the part that sais that the referendum is considered valid.


No it isn't, it's an eyewitness account of what's going on in Chechnya. You're not going to claim you're better informed than someone who's been there, are you? Well it IS a bag of air, because she doesn't even know what happened. Some people were taken away. Why were they taken away? Some people were killed. What were they killed for? It's obviously half a story. Chechens like to exagerate and even BBC admits it from time to time (and coming from them it means a lot) here's an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/658696.stm

Here's a link (unfortunately CNN) which tells an opposite story AND moreover it has that:

Sergei V. Yastrzhembsky, President Vladimir V. Putin's senior adviser on Chechnya, suggested in an interview published in the weekly newspaper Sobesednik last month that Islamic extremists had co-opted the "black widows" against their will to become suicide bombers.

"Chechens are turning these young girls into zombies using psychotropic drugs," Mr. Yastrzhembsky said. "I have heard that they rape them and record the rapes on video. After that, such Chechen girls have no chance at all of resuming a normal life in Chechnya. They have only one option: to blow themselves up with a bomb full of nails and ball bearings."

Mr. Yastrzhembsky and other officials have provided scant evidence of links to international terrorism. They seem to know little about how the suicide attacks have been planned, organized and carried out.

****

Prosecutors' greatest lead came with the arrest of Zarema Muzhikhoyeva, a 22-year-old Chechen who was arrested after trying unsuccessfully to detonate a bomb at a cafe on Tverskaya on the night of July 9.

Her husband is reported to have died, but in a car accident, not in the struggle against Russian forces. She also reportedly has an infant daughter.

The newspaper Kommersant, citing unidentified investigators, reported last month that Ms. Muzhikhoyeva arrived in Moscow from Nazran, the capital of Ingushetia, a week before the attempted bombing.

She was met by a Chechen woman named Lyuba and dubbed Black Fatima in news reports, after a common Chechen name who provided her with the explosives and plied her with orange juice that made her disoriented, suggesting that she had been drugged, the newspaper said.
***

"She studied," Kheda said. "She was a cultured girl, a modern girl. She could not have had anything like this in her mind."


Sad, very sad.


I'm someone who's decided your sources suck. There's really no other way to describe it. This last post of yours is the first batch of real sources you've given us, aside from Pravda.ru...and do I really need to go on about Pravda.ru anymore?
I gave you 5 sources out of which only 1 is new and only 1 is from pravda.ru. 80% of the sources you have seen before. 80% of the sources are not pravda.ru, so what's the problem? I don't like your sources either you know.

[mbabenko]

The newspaper Kommersant, citing unidentified investigators
by the way the metioned article in commersant can be found on http://www.kommersant.ru/k-vlast/default.asp?cissue=27&cyear=2003 (that is if you speak Russian)


Who's an eligible voter?
You tell me. And don't forget sources (because, you know, some people here are kinda picky on sources, we don't want to disappoint them ;))


What about the thousands of occupying Russian soldiers that have cast votes in the Chechen referendum?
Occupying soldiers voting on the fate of those whose country they occupy?
Seriously?
Did they vote? (I really don't know)


Ah. The Russians are perfectly justified in making hundreds of young men disappear (or turn up dead, or something of that nature), but she isn't justified in seeking vengeance by blowing some Russians up?
I can see how one would object to both, but to object to just one (when they are so clearly interrelated)?
Those Russians who commit crimes are obviously not jusyfied, but commiting crimes is as I said not a governmental policy, but individual offences which should be judged separately.

[S Urbanoski]

Final Warning boys and girls....take it easier on each other. Attack the view, not the person typing it.

[offguard96]

HELLO!!! It's a UFO SECTION meaning that "what if" is automaticly implied!!!

The stories are presented as fact.


They seem to present the existance of god as a fact!!!!!!!

They are FOLLOWING FILMMAKERS. They are making a film...about making a film about Jesus. The BBC itself is not making a film about Jesus.


the part that sais that the referendum is considered valid.

Oh? And which part is that? The part that says that the writer refuses to comment on Russian claims regarding the referendum? Cause that part is certainly there...I just don't know where the part that supports the referendum is.


she doesn't even know what happened. Some people were taken away. Why were they taken away? Some people were killed. What were they killed for? It's obviously half a story

Obviously something must have happened, if they refuse to even discuss it with anyone, and they would rather simply get revenge.



Mr. Yastrzhembsky and other officials have provided scant evidence of links to international terrorism. They seem to know little about how the suicide attacks have been planned, organized and carried out.

You should read your sources better...given what it says above, Mr. Yastrzhembsky knows nothing. And so, his opinion is worthless.


I gave you 5 sources out of which only 1 is new and only 1 is from pravda.ru. 80% of the sources you have seen before. 80% of the sources are not pravda.ru, so what's the problem?

The problem is that you've only just started coming up with sources. Of course, this is good, but up until about two posts ago, you still depended entirely on Pravda.ru, a State Department document that says nothing, and some Russian blurbs.


Those Russians who commit crimes are obviously not jusyfied, but commiting crimes is as I said not a governmental policy, but individual offences which should be judged separately.

Obviously Russia doesn't care, because those who commit these thousands and thousands of crimes have not been brought to trial once, in the past decade of Russian occupation. Where is the justice you speak of? What does that say about Russian sentiment and Moscow's commitment to justice?

[mbabenko]

Oh? And which part is that? The part that says that the writer refuses to comment on Russian claims regarding the referendum? Cause that part is certainly there...I just don't know where the part that supports the referendum is.
No, the part which sais that it's valid


Obviously something must have happened, if they refuse to even discuss it with anyone, and they would rather simply get revenge.
Well this story is about nothng then. A bag of air.



Mr. Yastrzhembsky and other officials have provided scant evidence of links to international terrorism. They seem to know little about how the suicide attacks have been planned, organized and carried out.
My links were not about how the suicide attacks have been planned, organized and carried out. They were about how they get their people which by the way contradicts YOUR link. Moreover, Mr. Yastrzhembsky is not their only source.


Obviously Russia doesn't care, because those who commit these thousands and thousands of crimes have not been brought to trial once, in the past decade of Russian occupation. Where is the justice you speak of? What does that say about Russian sentiment and Moscow's commitment to justice?
That's were you're wrong
http://tchetchenieparis.free.fr/text/soldats-crimes-21-9-01.htm


Thursday's list contained two soldiers sentenced to 15 and 12 years in prison each for killing four civilians in the village of Alkhan-Kala last December and another one sentenced to 11 years in prison for killing a civilian and wounding another in the city of Shatoi the same month. Another two soldiers were also sentenced to 12 and nine years for killing a Chechen woman and badly injuring her sister in the village of Khankala in February 2000.

[mbabenko]

All right here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/ BBC clearly presents Jesus ans his ressurection as a fact. They even place it in the history of the religion. All your BBC sources are now invalid.

[DMCorrigan]

All right here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/ BBC clearly presents Jesus ans his ressurection as a fact. They even place it in the history of the religion. All your BBC sources are now invalid.

I'm going to come in and shoot your last statement down. "Religion" is an article of faith and is assumed to be as such. Therefore, in the history of a thing completely made on faith, Jesus was resurrected.

His BBC sources are purely valid. One piece of information that you don't agree with doesn't make an entire group of articles he uses as sources all bad.

[Earlam]

You tell me. And don't forget sources (because, you know, some people here are kinda picky on sources, we don't want to disappoint them ;))

Does the book I've already mentioned count? The one by a Russian reporter?



Did they vote? (I really don't know)

No, they didn't. In some cases, roadblocks were erected outside of the cities where voting was taking place, and some had to sneak in to vote.



Those Russians who commit crimes are obviously not jusyfied, but commiting crimes is as I said not a governmental policy, but individual offences which should be judged separately.

Improper practices can't be discouraged too much if they keep happening at such a rate.


As a sidenote:
Almost 300 Russian soldiers were charged for offences in Chechnya by 2002.
But, almost 250 of those were privates. A very few NCOs, and only one officer.

It's good that some are being prosecuted, but I refuse to believe that NCOs and officers have absolutely nothing to do with anything bad happening in Chechnya. I don't think it's often that a bunch of conscripts just decide to drive an APC into a village and mow down its inhabitants because they're bored (both morally and practically a bad idea, as it's wrong, and if there's even a slight possibility of fighters actually being there, the soldiers could end up dead real fast).

[ian]

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurm ive said it before but why is it NEARLY ALL of you seem EXTREMLY quick to criticise mbabenko and his views but none of you seem to be thinking about what would happen if the same situation. i personaly think that the russians have every right to be in chechnea but thats my opinion.

[sgt4life]

but none of you seem to be thinking about what would happen if the same situation.

...if the same situation what?

[Earlam]

I think he means if the same thing were to happen wherever it is that we live.

I'll give an imaginary example.
Say this imaginary province, called Kabek, wanted to seperate. They declared independence, drafted a constitution, democratically elected a president, and wanted Canadian troops to leave.

The PM doesn't much like this situation, so he orders the PPCLI in to crush all dissent. The Kabeqios are understandably upset, and raise an armed resistance. Of course, the PPCLI and the RCRs crush the Hell out of them.
Also, the Air Element bombs the crap out of everything that moves in the fictional province (up to and including civilians going for a sunday drive in a Volvo). Refugees pour into the neighbouring nations (well, nation).
Suicide bombings begin in Ottawa, as the Kabeqios have no other way to raise publicity. Years of war have passed, but the international community doesn't seem to care.
Because of the suicide bombings, the already anti-Kabeqios bias in the rest of Canada increases, and atrocities increase even more in the embattled province/republic.

And et cetera, et cetera.


Personally, I'd sympathize with the Kabeqios.



Edit:
I intend to watch myself in this thread, in the hopes that it remain open.

If the other main debaters would kindly follow suit.......?

[DMCorrigan]

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurm ive said it before but why is it NEARLY ALL of you seem EXTREMLY quick to criticise mbabenko and his views but none of you seem to be thinking about what would happen if the same situation. i personaly think that the russians have every right to be in chechnea but thats my opinion.

If everyone agreed, this forum would be boring.

[mbabenko]

I'm going to come in and shoot your last statement down. "Religion" is an article of faith and is assumed to be as such. Therefore, in the history of a thing completely made on faith, Jesus was resurrected.
Oh no! you shut me down! And what about the alien histories? Aren't they based on faith? Did you actually read why guard invalidated my pravda.ru source? How is Jesus different from aliens? How is his life presented less as a fact then aliens in the article he gave in his reference against pravda?


Does the book I've already mentioned count? The one by a Russian reporter?
I think YOU once said that you like sources you can actually read and verify (Remember my Russian articles?), so I'll use my right to give the same answer.


No, they didn't. In some cases, roadblocks were erected outside of the cities where voting was taking place, and some had to sneak in to vote.
Believe me, I hate doing that, but whenever I say something I'm always accused in displaying bad/invalid SOURCES. What are yours? the book?
Anyways I've got 2 against it, are pravda and CNN (Allow me to point out: Russian and American sources that agree on something). If you have something better, let's see it.


Improper practices can't be discouraged too much if they keep happening at such a rate.
It doesn't make anyone more or less wrong though. They happen on equal rate on both sides, except that those which happen on the Russian side are looked upon as anomalies (which is normal).


Almost 300 Russian soldiers were charged for offences in Chechnya by 2002.
But, almost 250 of those were privates. A very few NCOs, and only one officer.
And the point is..... Russian NCOs are more professional then privates? Well they're ought to be more professional, they're not NCOs for nothing.
Look at me for example I'm an NCO and I'm Russian. I don't kill children nor do I rape women. :)


I refuse to believe that NCOs and officers have absolutely nothing to do with anything bad happening in Chechnya
I have no opinion here. It's for lawyers to decide.


...if the same situation what?
I assume it's IN the same situation.

[ian]

If everyone agreed, this forum would be boring.


yes thats fair enough but disagreing with someone and dismissing theire views as wrong are two different things

[ian]

I think he means if the same thing were to happen wherever it is that we live.

I'll give an imaginary example.
Say this imaginary province, called Kabek, wanted to seperate. They declared independence, drafted a constitution, democratically elected a president, and wanted Canadian troops to leave.

The PM doesn't much like this situation, so he orders the PPCLI in to crush all dissent. The Kabeqios are understandably upset, and raise an armed resistance. Of course, the PPCLI and the RCRs crush the Hell out of them.
Also, the Air Element bombs the crap out of everything that moves in the fictional province (up to and including civilians going for a sunday drive in a Volvo). Refugees pour into the neighbouring nations (well, nation).
Suicide bombings begin in Ottawa, as the Kabeqios have no other way to raise publicity. Years of war have passed, but the international community doesn't seem to care.
Because of the suicide bombings, the already anti-Kabeqios bias in the rest of Canada increases, and atrocities increase even more in the embattled province/republic.

And et cetera, et cetera.


Personally, I'd sympathize with the Kabeqios.



Edit:
I intend to watch myself in this thread, in the hopes that it remain open.

If the other main debaters would kindly follow suit.......?

urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm id have to disagree with you. ask yourself why the state broke away????????????????? the chechens had no reason to. they say they wanted to be free. free from what? they were never opressed or imprissoned. the violence only erupted when the chechens broke away.

[Earlam]

urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm id have to disagree with you. ask yourself why the state broke away????????????????? the chechens had no reason to. they say they wanted to be free. free from what? they were never opressed or imprissoned. the violence only erupted when the chechens broke away.

Actually, they've been oppressed and imprisoned since they entered Russia.

They were conquered by force by the Tsars (meaning they didn't enter Russia willingly in the first place).
They were abused (like many minority groups) during the time of the Russian royal family and under Communist rule.
In the 40's, most of the Chechen population was deported from their homeland by Stalin, and they were only allowed to return to Chechnya after his death. Many didn't, being dead.
So they were conquered, oppressed, deported, murdered, and abused.
I think that's a pretty good reason to seperate, don't you?
Heck, some in Quebec want to do it because they don't count for half of Canada! Some in the West want to do it because Central Canada sucks the wealth out of 'em (or at least tried)! And both these groups have at least some legitimacy.

Why would they want to be under Russia? The Russians take their wealth (oil), and they don't get anything they couldn't get by themselves. Besides that, they never wanted to be a part of Russia anyways, and they've been mistreated since they were forcefully incorporated into it.

And why would Russia invade with an army after the Chechen people democratically elected a seperatist president (remember how international observers declared that particular election valid) and declared indepence (showing that the Chechen people wanted out of the Russian federation, even before the wars started killing and radicalizing them)?
Why would Russia invade Chechnya after it signed a treaty with it (pretty much acknowledging it as a sovereign nation, as federal governments don't sign international treaties with provinces)?

It's not all <War-on-Islamic-Terror time so let's fall behind the European team>. There's alot more to this than that.

[JGallagher]

Unfortunetly September 11 will over shadow this!! How many of you will actully remember this next year?

[mbabenko]

Actually, they've been oppressed and imprisoned since they entered Russia.
hey wow here! They weren't more repressed and abused then any other Russians in the time.

And both these groups have at least some legitimacy.
There can't be any talk about seperatist groups in Tsarist/Communist times, but now all they need is MAJORITY of the population on their side, which they most definitely DO NOT have.

Why would they want to be under Russia? The Russians take their wealth (oil), and they don't get anything they couldn't get by themselves.
It's Russian Federation. The point of the Federation is to send money where its needed and Chechnia was getting its part. Things there were never worse then in the rest od Russia.


And why would Russia invade with an army after the Chechen people democratically elected a seperatist president (remember how international observers declared that particular election valid) and declared indepence
Because the independence was illegal.

[Tomtom]

I sent a private message to (according to my observations) the three key players in this thread with one simple request.

One of them has responded as requested. The other two replied with a private message refusing my request.

I consider myself to be quite fair and lenient as your moderator in International Issues. When I give direction, I expect that it is followed.

Sometimes I get to make the unpopular decisions. In this case - the participants in this thread made it for me.