We are all Russians

[demon]

Someone said Chechens have legitimate gripes. So, what has been done to Chechnya? Here are a few clues:

1) 150,000 civilians killed in the second war alone.
http://www.hrvc.net/htmls/references.htm

2) Rape.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/russia_chechnya2/

3) Killings, disappearances & torture.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/chechnya0322.htm

4) Arbitrary detention, shootings and looting.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/russia071603.htm

5) The conscious targeting of civilians .
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_710542.html

No Chechen group could even dream of equalling the deathly results of Russian policy.

And another important difference, No Pictures.


The image that really got me was the mother collapsed in grief over the bodies of her two young sons, that was disgraceful to show on TV. I very much doubt they would have showed that image had the bodies been British, American, French but Russia, well lots of people die there so dignity is not held in much stock.. Is it?

What is also disgraceful is the rush to capitalise on the atrocity by Putin and Bush, predictable and once again a demonstration of their lack of morality. Of course those who murdered so many innocents had a lack of morality, they are murderers nothing more or less, but outrage over such an act should not let those who are equally guilty adopt the moral high ground. Putin is responsible for untold carnage and misery in Chechnya yet tomorrow we'll see him wringing his hands over the corpses of children and demanding that the world give Russia carte blanch to deal with Chechen terrorism once and for all.... And by God we know what that will mean. Lots more children dead but hidden away from the cameras in the Chechen slaughterhouse.

Those who committed this crime today should be condemned and will be by one and all including the vast majority of the Chechen resistance, but I've watched BBC, ITN and Sky barely bothering to make any distinction between these ultra-extremists and the rest. I've watched several Russian spokesman pound out the message that there is no such thing as Chechen freedom fighters simply Islamic terrorists, I've also watched them attempt to warp the resistance in Chechnya into some Al-Qaeda summer school.

This is nothing less than the rush by Aznar to blame ETA for the Madrid bombing; capitalising on tragedy in an effort to save face. Inevitably the Russian propaganda line is being supported by those Neocons only too willing to promote the idea of a global terrorism war and by several idiots from the UK going by various descriptions. To give some credit Sky at least interviewed one British Chechnya expert who attempted to explain the differences but it’s a lone voice in the sea of disinformation - some of it incredibly sounding rather smug.

There's no doubt that Beslan will be used by the Kremlin to discredit the mainstream Chechen resistance, however it should never be forgotten that Russia's appalling crimes in that country give resistance an absolute legitimacy. The grievances of the Chechens are very real despite the black propaganda that the actions of today's barbaric lunatics will bring about.

Peace be now to those who perished so cruelly in Beslan, and hell and damnation to those who are responsible for their deaths... And I mean all those responsible.

 

[Gem]

Bull. You said as much here:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule #2: Don't occupy land that wants indepedence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's appeasement by any stretch of the imagination.

So then is every imperial nation is justified in occupying lands they conquered long ago just because giving in to the people who want to make their country is "appeasement?" So I guess when Britain gave Canada it's "independence" by removing its troops, they were appeasing the Canadians? When Africa cried out for freedom for the European countries, they shouldn't have given them that indepedence because it would be like appeasing them, right? Is that what you're saying?

If the rebels hide in civilian areas and use them as shields, it's on their head for the deaths that result. The "war crimes and atrocities" are being committed by the rebels. You saw more of them today, and you're turning the criminals into victims.

But they are! That doesn't excuse them either, but they are! Are you saying Russian soldiers commited no crimes when they occupied the land?

Apologists like yourself who parse words and seek valid reasons where none exist to justify atrocities such as what transpired today are seen by terrorists as signs of weakness and an invitation to do more of the same.

Again, I did not say it was a Valid reason. I just said it was THEIR reason. An eye for an eye. That is a reason, but NOT a valid reason. So yeah, because I point out WHY they feel they do this, I'm an apologist. I said this was a horror, but don't let that fact bother you.

[/QUOTE]
"shouldn't commit atrocities when you use your military"... What the hell do you think war is? It's one atrocity after another. Countries have armys to kill people and destroy things. By your definition, any military action is a war crime.
[/QUOTE]
No, that would be YOUR definition. I said the russians army commited war crimes during their occupation. You're the one who said: "It's one atrocity after another." That's YOUR definition. And by THAT definition, you just made every war, including the War in Iraq and Afgahnistan (Which I support, and assume you also supported.)

War may be an atrocity, but the alternative is much worse. And that alternative is not peace in this instance, it's subjugation and terrorism. And hundreds of dead children who were the intended targets here, not unintentional "collateral damage".

You are right here, but I do not see why you are saying the obvious to me. Did I say collateral damage anywhere? Did I say/think the school attack was "collateral damage?"

Why are we arguing, anyway?

Gem

 

[epepke]

So? You could go into Florida, and it still is part of the United States. What I meant is that they sent tanks and soldiers to Chechenya.

Yeah, and the Unites States sent soldiers and, well, cannon into Florida. A few people still resent that. However, we Floridians didn't go take a bunch of schoolchildren hostage and then blow them up.

 

[Hutch]

Again, I did not say it was a Valid reason. I just said it was THEIR reason. An eye for an eye. That is a reason, but NOT a valid reason. So yeah, because I point out WHY they feel they do this, I'm an apologist. I said this was a horror, but don't let that fact bother you.

Nicely put.

[QUOTER]Why are we arguing, anyway?

Gem [/QUOTE]


Because Wildcat is operating on an emotional binge and can see only the present abomination, while some of us are trying to look at past, present and future so that this horror doesn;t have to happen again. I recommend WC take several stiff drinks, get a night's sleep and rejoin the discussion tomorrow.

 

[Gem]

"Yeah, and the Unites States sent soldiers and, well, cannon into Florida. A few people still resent that. However, we Floridians didn't go take a bunch of schoolchildren hostage and then blow them up."

My point about florida was about WC saying Russians "didn't go into Chechnya" because it was part of russia. Obviously the Chechnya conflict is vastly different to the one of the Civil War (with similarities, as always). My point was basicly they occupied a land who's inhabitants were much different than the occupiers. Not to mention, Florida wasn't brutally crushed by Union troops during and after the Civil War.

Also, the Floridians were still Americans.

Gem

P.S.: Thank you Hutch.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are all Russians

My vse russkie segodnya-We are all Russians today.

Thank you, though it would be nice to see it in Cyrilic. And I think Russians deserve a lot more than one day for this one.

I think there's a whole lot more. I have never advertised myself as a particularly moral person, and I'm pretty cynical about people, but nonetheless, the utter lack of a moral sense that I've seen displayed even in this thread truly disgusts me. Once a person--to apply the term losely--starts to think, even a little bit, that the deliberate capture and murder of schoolchildren is in any way justifiable for any cause, then I think we've gone beyond the realm of reasonble human differences and into clear sociopathy. We're not talking even about a misguided bomb here; it's a deliberate, specific plan for the slaughter of children.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

This is unbelievable.
Russia didn't "go into Chechnya". Chechnya is part of Russia!

Russia *did* go into Chechnya way back in Tsarist times. No excuse for terrorists, but Chechnya in *not* part of Russia.

And the Communists inherited it. And so too the current regime.

Stalin brutally supressed a rebellion in Chechnya back in the 1930s, but it was not reported at the time because Stalin controlled the flow of information.

It's not such a clear-cut issue. Still, no excuse for terrorists.

BTW, the terrorists in this case were not in fact all Chechens, despite the apparent cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3624024.stm
Scroll down a bit.

Russian officials have described some of the hostage-takers as mercenaries from Arab countries.

However I don't believe they are mercenaries. They are committed jihadis.

 

[epepke]

Russia *did* go into Chechnya way back in Tsarist times.

Yah, and the US did go into Florida in colonial times. And Hawaii and Alaska in modern times. And they're not part of the US? Whoa, nellie!

No excuse for terrorists, but Chechnya in *not* part of Russia.

In New York, we called that a "Yeah, but." Except in this case it's a "Nah but."

 

[epepke]

200 dead, 700 wounded, half children.

I'm sure the "eye for an eye" sociopaths here are just creaming their jeans in delight and ideological satisfaction.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: We are all Russians

You can thank AUP, The Fool, Demon, Mr Manifesto, EJ Armstrong and Ion for that. They've repeatedly defended mass-murderers of children, who, coincidentally are of the same ilk as these terrorists.

Can you show one example of me defending mass murderers of children?
just curious....

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This is unbelievable.
Russia didn't "go into Chechnya". Chechnya is part of Russia!

I guess what you're saying is that terrorists should be appeased, and they should not be fought. For that, you would get exponentially more terrorism.

Russia did leave Chechnya alone for a while after it's troops lost Grozny in 1995. But then Cechnya imposed Islamic law (sharia) and started to destabilize the other provinces around it. Russia had no choice but to go in and put down the rebellion.

You just don't get it. Islamic extremists don't just want to be left alone to abuse and torment each other. Their goal is for the entire world to be under their thumb. And you want them to be appeased.

Friggin' unbelievable.

This is the kind of information I was looking for. Ugh. Okay, now I think "I get it".

These kind of people are happy when THEIR children "die for the cause".

Russia should squash them like bugs and de-brainwash the remaining children after the siege. Okay, that's extreme, but what else?

Sigh. Russia may be getting their due?

I'm just feeling sick right now, don't mind me, ugh. Nasty business.

 

[Hutch]

Yah, and the US did go into Florida in colonial times. And Hawaii and Alaska in modern times. And they're not part of the US? Whoa, nellie!

Bad, bad, bad epepke.

Florida--purchased by the US Government from Spain nice and legal (BTW, don't you think the Seminoles might have done a few "barbaric" things when we rolled over them?

Hawaii. Petitioned to become part of US. Admitedlly, this was with some sharp dealing by American settlers there, but hardly a conquest.

Alaska--Purchased outright from the Russian Government in 1867 (remember Seward's folly?)

Chechenia--Conquest by Csarist troops in the 1850's and 1860's and made a provice of Russia by fiat.

Not quite the same.

And BTW...

the utter lack of a moral sense that I've seen displayed even in this thread truly disgusts me. Once a person--to apply the term losely--starts to think, even a little bit, that the deliberate capture and murder of schoolchildren is in any way justifiable for any cause, then I think we've gone beyond the realm of reasonble human differences and into clear sociopathy.

...would you care to define who you accusse of sociopathy and give examples from this thread?

There is a difference in condemning a horrific act and trying to see where the barbarous act was generated from (so that we may learn from tradgedy and perhaps avoid such terrors in the future). and just saying in was because "they" are barbarians.

 

[renata]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are all Russians

Thank you, though it would be nice to see it in Cyrilic. And I think Russians deserve a lot more than one day for this one.

I think there's a whole lot more. I have never advertised myself as a particularly moral person, and I'm pretty cynical about people, but nonetheless, the utter lack of a moral sense that I've seen displayed even in this thread truly disgusts me. Once a person--to apply the term losely--starts to think, even a little bit, that the deliberate capture and murder of schoolchildren is in any way justifiable for any cause, then I think we've gone beyond the realm of reasonble human differences and into clear sociopathy. We're not talking even about a misguided bomb here; it's a deliberate, specific plan for the slaughter of children.

I am afraid I am not able to post cyrillic script here- if someone knows how, please PM me and I will post that phrase here.

I am very familiar with the Chechen conflict, and have long sympathized with the plight of the Chechen people. In fact, I have some strange connections to Chechnya- the former President of Chechnya and a leader of the original uprising (since assassinated) General Dudayev, was stationed in my small town, head of Air Force there and I think I met him in my school a few times. We had many chechens stationed there, and so were very familiar with the situation. The resettlement of Chechens was also a subject for an influential book in the 80s, which gathered widespread sympathy for the way they were mistreated for decades. The atrocities commited by Russians are also well known.

However, I wish that for one or two days, people would not debate the whys, the politics and the Russian atrocities. Just like after 9/11 I wished a few days would pass before people start explaining why it is US's fault and how US would use it for its nefarious purposes. I am hoping people will have some respect for the thousands of people who just had their worst nightmare, for shattering of those lives. Also, for the lives that will be lost in the inevitable retaliation. Maybe I am a sentimental naive romantic, but I hoped for some peace, respect, grief and simple sadness. I think both the sides that say- Russia deserved it, Russia will use it- as well as people that say- see, Muslims are evil, kill some Chechens (and I am not necessarily referring to people's comments here) use this incident too quickly to prop up their preexisting views. For myself, I am just very sad today.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

For sure renata. I'm thinking the same. Trying to think of how it all can be resolved is just driving me insane.

 

[Hutch]

Renata, If I have offended, I apologize. Perhaps I think to much and reflect to long and should just feel more.

Or maybe I have a justifiable opinion of humanity...which, dear lady, you do a lot to restore.

Again, sorry if I offended. Sadness for a life needlessly lost , especially a young one, is always appropriate.

 

[csense]

Hawaii. Petitioned to become part of US. Admitedlly, this was with some sharp dealing by American settlers there, but hardly a conquest.

I think Queen Liliuokalani, and history in general, would disagree with you.

There's enough information on the net, and easily accessible I might add, concerning the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the role of the U.S.S Boston, not to mention that of Dole and Stevens, to easily refute your above sentiments.

 

[WildCat]

So then is every imperial nation is justified in occupying lands they conquered long ago just because giving in to the people who want to make their country is "appeasement?" So I guess when Britain gave Canada it's "independence" by removing its troops, they were appeasing the Canadians? When Africa cried out for freedom for the European countries, they shouldn't have given them that indepedence because it would be like appeasing them, right? Is that what you're saying?



But they are! That doesn't excuse them either, but they are! Are you saying Russian soldiers commited no crimes when they occupied the land?



Again, I did not say it was a Valid reason. I just said it was THEIR reason. An eye for an eye. That is a reason, but NOT a valid reason. So yeah, because I point out WHY they feel they do this, I'm an apologist. I said this was a horror, but don't let that fact bother you.

"shouldn't commit atrocities when you use your military"... What the hell do you think war is? It's one atrocity after another. Countries have armys to kill people and destroy things. By your definition, any military action is a war crime.
[/QUOTE]
No, that would be YOUR definition. I said the russians army commited war crimes during their occupation. You're the one who said: "It's one atrocity after another." That's YOUR definition. And by THAT definition, you just made every war, including the War in Iraq and Afgahnistan (Which I support, and assume you also supported.)



You are right here, but I do not see why you are saying the obvious to me. Did I say collateral damage anywhere? Did I say/think the school attack was "collateral damage?"

Why are we arguing, anyway?

Gem [/QUOTE]
If you don't understand the differences between deliberately targeting children and the results of hiding behind children, using them as shields, I can't help you.

As for going back 30, 40, 50, 100 years in time to justify atrocities such as have been witnessed today, here's a little perspective:

- Do all Jews today have the right to slaughter all German nationals on sight, because of what happened 60 years ago?

-Do all American decendants of slaves have the right to slaughter all Americans of European decent because of what happened 150 years ago, or the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow?

-How about the Australian Aborigenes? Don't they reserve the right to slaughter Euro-Australians for the atrocities of the past?

- Same goes for the indigenous Americans

Lots of people have gripes against other people that go back manyv years. It doesn't justify atrocities today. If it did, I could go slaughter any French person I see over the land lost from my German great-grandparents after WWI in Alcase.

Go back far enough, everyone on the planet has an ax to grind. It doesn't make it right, understandable, or justifiable.

Gem, if I misunderstood your position I apologize. I'm just saying that when war breaks out, bad things happen. Atrocities even. But that is the nature of war, and why it should be avoided. But it is sometimes inevitable. But IMHO, nothing justifies what went on yesterday in Russia.

 

[WildCat]

I think my last post was a bit scattershot, but this whole topic has me greatly depressed, and I'm a bit drunk... I'll try to clarify tomorrow.

 

[Kopji]

Needing a stiff drink sounds like one of the most reasonable responses to such horror.

 

[geni]

The Chechen wan the right the self determination. The russians don't want them (or their neibours the Ingush) to have it. History teaches us the result. Terrible things will be done by both sides untill someone gives in.