The Chechens' American friends

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heresson
You mean, to fight for independance against Russia is terrorism and banditism?

I think it is. This is because referendums have not demonstrated that most Chechnians desire independance atm. Violent rebellion against a representative form of government deserves to be recognized as terrorism or banditry. The exception might be those representative governments that don't offer such local referendums to the populations of the region in question.

Otherwise the assassin who killed JFK might have to be considered not an assassin but rather an insurgent simply pursuing a political objective.

[MalevolentLight]

Refering to the first post in this thread...who ever said our media was free and unbiased? On CNN their reporters aren't allowed to use certain words like "illegal alien", they have to be called guests. FoX news has made sure to call them terrorists, but you are right most the media out there is calling them rebels and freedom fighters and ****. They are terrorists pure and simple and I would like nothing more than to see them paved over and turned into a parking lot.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo

I think it is. This is because referendums have not demonstrated that most Chechnians desire independance atm.

Do You think those "referenda"
weren't forged? Oh c-mon,
Also, when did they take place?
I do not recall, really.
And if they did, they took place AFTER the wars, when the state was under Russian military occupation.
And do You really believe Chechens want to be a part of state that conquered them, colonised, accused of collaborating with Hitler, moved en masse out of their homes?

Violent rebellion against a representative form of government deserves to be recognized as terrorism or banditry. The exception might be those representative governments that don't offer such local referendums to the populations of the region in question.

Yes, I firmly believe Russia would let a part of it declare independance if it willed so...

Also, it wasn't a "violent rebellion".
As former Soviet republics as Ukraine or Kazakhstan declared independance, so did Chechenia. No violence up to the time when Yeltzin much later decided to put an end to this self-claimed independance.
Was Lithuanian independance banditism and terrorism? Slovenian?
Bosnian? They all fall into your cathegory, if You count Chechenia in.
You could claim Tibetans are bandits and terrorists as well this way.

Otherwise the assassin who killed JFK might have to be considered not an assassin but rather an insurgent simply pursuing a political objective.

Bad comparison. This assasin killed someone, Chechens didn't kill anyone by declaring independance. Russia by deciding on military action against this occupation - yes.
(I'm talking about pre-1994 stuff)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Violent rebellion against a representative form of government deserves to be recognized as terrorism or banditry.

As opposed to the American rebellion?

[Heresson]

Chegitz supports me!
Shock.

[Geronimo]

Wow, lots to address here, I hope I don't overlook anything.

First off this might all be a minor linguistic misunderstanding. You had asked:

Originally posted by Heresson
You mean, to fight for independance against Russia is terrorism and banditism?

and I read 'fight' to mean violent rebellion. If you meant fight in the metaphorical sense of strenuously opposing I would have to say I do not equate that kind of 'fight' to terrorism and banditry.


In case you meant 'fight' to be violent opposition I'll try to address the rest of the post

Originally posted by Heresson


Do You think those "referenda"
weren't forged? Oh c-mon,
Also, when did they take place?
I do not recall, really.
And if they did, they took place AFTER the wars, when the state was under Russian military occupation.

You're correct that they all took place under Russian military occupation, but Puerto Rico is under US military occupation and yet people recognize our periodic referendums there on the degree of partial or complete independance of Puerto Rico as legitimate. Military occupation does not automatically prevent use of a referendum.

Originally posted by Heresson
And do You really believe Chechens want to be a part of state that conquered them, colonised, accused of collaborating with Hitler, moved en masse out of their homes?

Well I make comparisons to the situation of the native Americans here in the US. The native Americans were ethnically cleansed out of desirable areas of the country and moved to undesirable little scraps of land called reservations. Native americans got conquered, colonised, accused of all manner of vicious crimes, and moved en masse out of their homes. What's worse, we never had a repatriation to ancestral regions of the country in the US. In Russia at least most of the Nahk speaking inhabitants of Chechnya were repatriated there not long after Stalins death. And yet despite all this it can seem as if there are as many opinions on how and with what to replace the current system of reservations with as there are inhabitants of those reservations. I don't find it that hard to believe that after the disastrous period of Chechnian independance from 1996 to 1999 that most chechnyans might want to remain under the relative protection of the Russian federation.

Originally posted by Heresson
Yes, I firmly believe Russia would let a part of it declare independance if it willed so...

It did! The independance of the ex soviet republics was largely a result of the efforts of the Russian federation and Russia later even granted indepence to Chechnia. I don't see why you find this so hard to belive. A region can be more trouble for a democracy to keep than it's worth. The reason independance ended for Chechnia was that it wasn't working out any better and in fact managed to become even more trouble than union had been.

Originally posted by Heresson
Also, it wasn't a "violent rebellion".
As former Soviet republics as Ukraine or Kazakhstan declared independance, so did Chechenia. No violence up to the time when Yeltzin much later decided to put an end to this self-claimed independance.

It certainly became a violent rebellion

Originally posted by Heresson
Was Lithuanian independance banditism and terrorism? Slovenian?

No, they gained independance peacefully.

Originally posted by Heresson
Bosnian? They all fall into your cathegory, if You count Chechenia in.
You could claim Tibetans are bandits and terrorists as well this way.

I have to research a bit more about the state of democracy in yugoslavia when Bosnia declared independance but I'm fairly sure the violence was not initiaed by the Bosnians in any case.

As to tibet, are you seriously claiming that China is anywhere near as democratic as Russia is? All political parties except communism are illegal in China. Anybody and everybody is justified in violently opposing such a government in my opinion although I would still condemn any terrorism by Tibetans against Chinese civilians if they ever were to take part in such actions.

Originally posted by Heresson
Bad comparison. This assasin killed someone, Chechens didn't kill anyone by declaring independance. Russia by deciding on military action against this occupation - yes.
(I'm talking about pre-1994 stuff)

It sems like a perfect comparison unless by 'fight' in your original post you meant 'fighting' that doesn't involve any killings. Otherwise I'm stumped as to why you'd think this was a bad comparison.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As opposed to the American rebellion?

The fact that I regard the 18th century British government as even less democratic than modern Russia notwithstanding I actually don't think the American revolution was at first excusable simply because in the beginning it did not set out to establish a true representative government. Only white men could take part in political process and look at the terrible policies that persisted until this situation was redressed. Hell, the UK actually outlawed slavery decades before the US did. Of course this in no way means that I don't recognize the US independance that was gained in the revolutionary war as legitimate but it was only legitimate because in recognition of the decision on the battlefield, both parties agreed to acknowledge it.

[Heresson]

and I read 'fight' to mean violent rebellion. If you meant fight in the metaphorical sense of strenuously opposing I would have to say I do not equate that kind of 'fight' to terrorism and banditry.
In case you meant 'fight' to be violent opposition I'll try to address the rest of the post

And if I mean "defending self-claimed independance against the attack of Russian army" by it?

You're correct that they all took place under Russian military occupation, but Puerto Rico is under US military occupation and yet people recognize our periodic referendums there on the degree of partial or complete independance of Puerto Rico as legitimate. Military occupation does not automatically prevent use of a referendum.

Where are You from?
Why don't You understand Russia has no democratical tradition to say it in very polite way, and that the referenda in such cases are bound to be forged, or at least are let to be forged? I remember a Russian journalist who voted 5x in last Chechenian elections, and said he'd have voted more, but he had better things to do.
Also, was Puerto Rico occupied after a serie of uprisings, wars, depatriations and repatriations, and do Americans say "we hate them, and they hate us", like Serb says about Chechenia,
and was it just a couple of whiles ago?

In Russia at least most of the Nahk speaking inhabitants of Chechnya were repatriated there not long after Stalins death.

USA politics suck, then, but that does not mean Russian do not.

after the disastrous period of Chechnian independance from 1996 to 1999 that most chechnyans might want to remain under the relative protection of the Russian federation.

You think the war Russians led was less destructive? That rapes, killings, tortures on Chechenians made them love Russia and want to flee under her arms? C-mon....

It did! The independance of the ex soviet republics was largely a result of the efforts of the Russian federation

These republics were not a part of Russia.
Yeltzin supported the split of USSR, not granted independance to anyone. He was just one of many.

and Russia later even granted indepence to Chechnia.

Id did? Really? So current war is Russian agression on an independant state?

It certainly became a violent rebellion

But it is a fault of Russian gouverment, not Chechen, sorry.

No, they gained independance peacefully.

Not quite. There were military clashes.

I have to research a bit more about the state of democracy in yugoslavia when Bosnia declared independance but I'm fairly sure the violence was not initiaed by the Bosnians in any case.

Nor was by Chechenians (referring to 1994)

As to tibet, are you seriously claiming that China is anywhere near as democratic as Russia is?

No, why would why? It's irrelevant.

It sems like a perfect comparison unless by 'fight' in your original post you meant 'fighting' that doesn't involve any killings. Otherwise I'm stumped as to why you'd think this was a bad comparison.

If Russians accepted Chechen independance from the start, there would be no "fighting"

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I actually don't think the American revolution was at first excusable simply because in the beginning it did not set out to establish a true representative government.

Still, it was a step forward, wasn't it

[Berzerker]

Serb -

Perhaps I need a pair of glasses, but I can't find Berz's resonse to this question.

That would explain why you aren't responding to my points. He posted it shortly after my last post and you think it's unusual I didn't respond to his question before your "observation"? I'll try to stay online 24/7 from now on

Geronimo -

Interesting. So Berz, suppose that native americans native to one of the states started committing terracts and demanded the return of that state in it's entirety to their exclusive political control.

Okay, I'm supposing...now what?

Further let's imagine that one state is the state you live in. Let's also suppose that unexpectedly most of the non native americans flee the state so that incredibly a native american majority is established there. Given that US history has consisted of hundreds of years of genocide, marginalization and oppression of native Americans would you then recomend that the best response to these terracts be to grant independance to the state you live in under the political control of the native americans?

Your "analogy" is askew, the genocide of Indians ended around 100 years ago and Indians have long since assimiliated into the local cultures or vice versa, the genocide isn't ongoing. Modern Indians cannot hold modern whites accountable for the crimes of the past, but those crimes sure explain why some Indians don't like white people just as Russia's past explains why many Chechens hate Russians...

As for your question, sure, let the Indians have a chance at governing. They can't be any worse than the Republicrats... But my state was settled primarily by Quakers and they actually got along well with the Indians here... Oh yeah, where did you get the idea I'm defending murdering the innocent? That's why I'm opposed to Russia being in Chechnya in the first place.

Doesn't your pov suggest that the best thing for native americans to do to regain what was there's would be to commit terracts so everybody can point to their hundreds of years of oppression and grievances and call the rest of the americans the real villians?

The oppression in Chechnya is ongoing - a continuation of centuries of abuse. The best response is the moral response, and the moral response is to find out why Chechens are angry and seek a solution. And the solution is to stop oppressing Chechens, let them go...

Why does my position on Chechnya require me to defend what whites did to Indians more than a century ago? I'd think if you would have opposed the genocide of Indians you'd oppose the genocide of Chechens too...

If my family is murdered because some politician decided to force people off in some distant land to be part of our group, I'd be damn mad at the politician too...
Is Russia forcing all Chechens to be part of Russia out of some concern for the human rights of Chechens who want to be Russians? **** NO! They want the resources, so let's not portray the Russians as some benevolent force resisting evil...there's plenty of that to go around...

Ljube -

Does this mean you support Chechens Berz?

I support their independence, if Chechens are in disagreement about being part of Russia, then let them decide. If they are split on the matter and violence becomes part of the "solution", then Chechnya should split up into pro-Russian and anti-Russian areas. Hell, let them split up into their traditionally tribal systems...

[Berzerker]

Chechens didn't kill anyone by declaring independance. Russia by deciding on military action against this occupation - yes.
(I'm talking about pre-1994 stuff)

And the terrorism started after the miltary action.

Oh, Geronimo, Puerto Rico is not under military occupation so arguing that it is analogous to Chechnya is invalid.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And the terrorism started after the miltary action.

Oh, Geronimo, Puerto Rico is not under military occupation so arguing that it is analogous to Chechnya is invalid.

I admit I don't regard it as under occupation either, but polytubbies generally speak as if any area which hosts a military base of outsiders which they cannot unilaterally eject as being under occupation. The US may not make as full of use of the firing range on Puerto Rico as before the protests but by no means is the military no longer operating from there.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Serb -

That would explain why you aren't responding to my points. He posted it shortly after my last post and you think it's unusual I didn't respond to his question before your "observation"? I'll try to stay online 24/7 from now on

Geronimo -

Okay, I'm supposing...now what?



Your "analogy" is askew, the genocide of Indians ended around 100 years ago and Indians have long since assimiliated into the local cultures or vice versa, the genocide isn't ongoing. Modern Indians cannot hold modern whites accountable for the crimes of the past, but those crimes sure explain why some Indians don't like white people just as Russia's past explains why many Chechens hate Russians...

As for your question, sure, let the Indians have a chance at governing. They can't be any worse than the Republicrats... But my state was settled primarily by Quakers and they actually got along well with the Indians here... Oh yeah, where did you get the idea I'm defending murdering the innocent? That's why I'm opposed to Russia being in Chechnya in the first place.



The oppression in Chechnya is ongoing - a continuation of centuries of abuse. The best response is the moral response, and the moral response is to find out why Chechens are angry and seek a solution. And the solution is to stop oppressing Chechens, let them go...

Why does my position on Chechnya require me to defend what whites did to Indians more than a century ago? I'd think if you would have opposed the genocide of Indians you'd oppose the genocide of Chechens too...

If my family is murdered because some politician decided to force people off in some distant land to be part of our group, I'd be damn mad at the politician too...
Is Russia forcing all Chechens to be part of Russia out of some concern for the human rights of Chechens who want to be Russians? **** NO! They want the resources, so let's not portray the Russians as some benevolent force resisting evil...there's plenty of that to go around...

Ljube -

I support their independence, if Chechens are in disagreement about being part of Russia, then let them decide. If they are split on the matter and violence becomes part of the "solution", then Chechnya should split up into pro-Russian and anti-Russian areas. Hell, let them split up into their traditionally tribal systems...

I feel better about your position now. It doesnt sound like you accept violent solutions as the best approach to situations of this type. That was the point of my US equivalent analogy.

Now in Chechnia we have the situation where independance was granted and during this period of independance a taliban like terrorist regime was established which even went so far as to invade Russia in an operation evidently designed to expand their little wahabbist entity by pressuring Russia to abandon it's province of Dagestan as well. In light of these recent events how do you think immediate resumption of Chechnian independance would solve anything?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Now in Chechnia we have the situation where independance was granted and during this period of independance a taliban like terrorist regime was established which even went so far as to invade Russia in an operation evidently designed to expand their little wahabbist entity by pressuring Russia to abandon it's province of Dagestan as well. In light of these recent events how do you think immediate resumption of Chechnian independance would solve anything?

First of all, the independance WAS NOT granted. Again, otherwise You'd have to admit current attack is an agression on a souvereign state
When it comes to Dagestan stuff, it was a work of mr Basajev, the authorities of the republic condemned the attack.

[Straybow]

I believe that "autonomy" rather than "independence" is the proper term for Chechnya's status post-1994.

Nonetheless, I've seen the Chechen war as exactly analogous to the US invasion of Afghanistan. The government had made the state a haven of terrorists. In all such cases the best solution would be a Deus Ex Machina like The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Since that won't happen I don't suggest sitting on one's hands waiting for it.