The Chechens' American friends

[Serb]

Re: Re: The Chechens' American friends

Originally posted by Lonestar


First of all, I don't know what channels you've been watching, but the nicest I heard them refered to was "Hostage-takers".

Second, I don't see Russia's Free Press commenting on the possibility that, waaaayyy back in 1999 the FSB framed the Chechens by destroying those apartment buildings, thus giving the Yelstin administration (which had less than 2% support at the time) the justification needed to go re-occupy Chechnya.

We had and still have plenty of morons who says so. Berezovsky shot "documentary" about Kremlin exploding his own citizens. Some f*ckers wrote books about that. So?
I can give you a link to the site (no, it's not Russian, it's American site) which contain undeniable evidences that American administration was behind 9/11 attack. So?

[Serb]

Curerntly our "oppressed" and 'killedbyPutin' opposition press sponsored by Berezovsky and other oligarchs already launched its anti-government campaign. Some f*ckers already shouts that Putin was behind the tragedy in Beslan.

[Ned]

What I find shocking is that the so-called neocons are smearing Putin and coddling the terrorists. This does not make sense.

Imran, as a neocon, could you explain?

[Giancarlo]

I thought Imran was a democrat?

[Lonestar]

Re: Re: Re: The Chechens' American friends

Originally posted by Serb


We had and still have plenty of morons who says so. Berezovsky shot "documentary" about Kremlin exploding his own citizens. Some f*ckers wrote books about that. So?
I can give you a link to the site (no, it's not Russian, it's American site) which contain undeniable evidences that American administration was behind 9/11 attack. So?

Mine came from the Wall Street Journal, which is a somewhat higher calibre than the usual web links.

(Ripped it off of Early Bird)

Wall Street Journal
September 7, 2004
Pg. 20

A Small Town In Russia

By David Satter

MOSCOW -- The horrifying outcome of the Beslan school siege in southern Russia makes clear that President Vladimir Putin's determination to crush the Chechen resistance at all costs is a form of moral suicide that will destroy what is left of Russian democracy and could threaten the whole world.

In the wake of the siege, there are 335 known dead and 260 missing. The final death toll may reach 600, making this the worst terrorist atrocity in post-Soviet Russian history and the most depraved, insofar as most of the victims are children. Perhaps as shocking as the behavior of the terrorists, however, was the reaction of the Russian authorities, who made no effort to save the hostages but concentrated exclusively on achieving their political goals.

The storm of the school began after an explosion in the school gym. The explosion may have been an accident but a storm of the building was inevitable because no other alternative was ever contemplated. Mr. Putin did not respond to the terrorists' demands or send anyone to negotiate. According to the freed hostages, the terrorists also could not call through to a single official in North Ossetia, where the school is located. Officials refused to come to the phone although the children of several of them were in the school.

Once the storm began, a pitched battle broke out in the gym and terrorists blew themselves up, killing everyone around them. One of the reasons why counting the dead is so difficult is that, in many cases, there is nothing left of what were once the school's children -- only pieces.

Beslan, in many ways, was a repetition of the hostage-taking in the Moscow theater in November 2002, when 800 hostages were held for 57 hours. In that case, officials also refused to negotiate, although the hostage-takers' demands for a partial withdrawal from Chechnya were similar to positions supported by the majority of the population. Instead, the Federal Security Service (or FSB; successor of the KGB) flooded the hall with gas, causing the deaths of 129 hostages.

The Russian authorities have now demonstrated that, in a confrontation with terrorists, they are ready to sacrifice the lives of children. The terrorists, however, are adaptable and hostage-taking is not the only method open to them. In the theater siege, children under 12 were released and virtually all of the bombs were dummies, incapable of detonating. In the school siege, the terrorists deliberately targeted children and the bombs were real. It is not likely that those who carried out the two attacks -- in both cases, an important role was played by terrorist leader Shamil Basaev -- will now renounce attacking theaters, schools and hospitals. Instead of seizing them and taking hostages, however, they may simply blow them up.

Indiscriminate terror is a tactic against which Russian society, given its high level of corruption, has little defense. In 1995, Basaev was able to seize a hospital in Budyennovsk and take nearly 2,000 persons hostage because he paid off traffic policemen at 24 checkpoints not to inspect his trucks that were filled with 150 Chechen fighters.

Another equally serious threat to Russia is the danger of a wider war in the North Caucasus. Until recently, Ingushetiya, the Muslim region bordering Chechnya, had remained relatively isolated from the war in Chechnya; but in recent elections, Murat Zyazikov, a former FSB general, was elected governor in an election characterized by ballot-box stuffing, bribery and intimidation at gunpoint. The advent of Mr. Zyazikov led to a rise in support for the Chechens among the Ingush, and Ingush were among the terrorists who seized the school in Beslan. The Ingush are the traditional enemies of the Ossetes, the principal residents of North Ossetia, and when the hostages who escaped the school reported that many of the hostage-takers were Ingush, the news was considered so dangerous that it was not carried by Russian TV. Nonetheless, on the day of the storm, a group of Ossetes seized several dozen Ingush as hostages and tension is now running high throughout North Ossetia.

Ultimately, the danger of a campaign of indiscriminate terror and a new war in the North Caucasus derives from Russia's refusal to consider any form of independence for Chechnya. This refusal is not a matter of moral principle but derives only from Mr. Putin's determination to assert power and defend his political position. Chechnya, ever since it declared independence in 1991, has been a pawn in the power struggle in Russia, its fate determined exclusively by the needs of the dominant faction in Moscow.

For three years, President Boris Yeltsin refused all negotiations with Dzhokar Dudaev, the president of Chechnya who, in reality, was only seeking autonomy from Russia. Chechnya was nonetheless left untouched. The situation changed in 1994: Mr. Yeltsin had forcibly dissolved the Russian parliament and lost popular support. This encouraged him to embark on what he assumed would be a short war to bolster his popularity. Without a parliament capable of limiting his power, he sent troops into Chechnya to suppress independence. The result: three years of fighting that killed approximately 6,000 Russian soldiers and 80,000 Chechen civilians. The war ended with the Khasavurt Accords that provided for the withdrawal of Russian troops and a final decision on independence in 2001.

From 1996-99, Chechnya was a de facto independent state; but in 1999, Mr. Yeltsin's popularity rating had fallen to 2% and there was fear in the Kremlin that a new president would order criminal prosecution of his associates and family. To avoid this, the Yeltsin entourage had to guarantee the election of a reliable successor and there are signs that a decision was made to redirect popular anger over the pillaging of the country toward the Chechens.

In September, four apartment buildings were bombed in the middle of the night in Moscow, Buinaksk and Volgodonsk, killing 300. Russian officials said that there was a "Chechen trail" in the bombings (there was never proof of Chechen involvement) and the population was galvanized in support of a new invasion of Chechnya that it had previously opposed. Early success in the war turned Mr. Putin, then prime minister, into a national hero and he easily won election as Mr. Yeltsin's successor. In his first official action, he signed a decree granting Mr. Yeltsin and his family immunity from criminal prosecution.

In the five years since the bombings, however, a great deal of evidence has emerged that suggests that they were carried out by the Russian FSB, not by Chechens. FSB agents were captured after placing a fifth bomb in a building in Ryazan. The bomb tested positive for hexogen, the explosive used in the other bombings. More recently, Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB agent who was investigating the explosions, spoke to the landlord who rented out the basement of the building in Moscow where the bomb that destroyed that building was placed. He said he'd been pressured by the FSB to falsely identify a Chechen as the renter of the basement. Mr. Trepashkin was able to identify the real renter as Vladimir Romanovich, an FSB officer responsible for infiltrating Chechen criminal groups who was killed several months after the bombings in a hit-and-run accident on Cyprus.

As president, Mr. Putin has pursued the Second Chechen War -- which has led to 50,000 additional civilian deaths -- with unbending obstinacy, refusing all negotiations with the Chechen leader, Aslan Maskhadov. At the same time, Russian forces have launched a campaign of terror in Chechnya, arresting, torturing and murdering thousands of Chechen men on suspicion of ties with the guerillas.

As the people of Beslan bury their dead children, Russia has come to a moment of truth in its pursuit of total capitulation in Chechnya. Moderate elements in Chechnya do exist. In a statement posted on the Chechenpress Web site, Mr. Maskhadov called for all Chechens "to mourn for the innocent victims of the Beslan school siege." Mr. Putin, however, has made no move to try to involve him or any other moderate Chechen separatist in negotiations over the future of Chechnya. Instead, he has indicated that he believes the Chechen problem can be solved by using force. In his speech on the day after the storm of the school, Mr. Putin, paraphrasing a well-known speech by Stalin, said, "We showed weakness and weak people are beaten."

If experience is any indication, the new security measures will include restrictions on freedom in Russia and renewed repression in Chechnya. None of these measures is likely to work. As a result, as Russia's democracy diminishes, the threat to the civilian population will increase.

For years since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has supported Russia's leaders on the theory that they were pro-Western reformers, while remaining blind to the moral vacuum in which they operated. This is one of the reasons for the comparative silence on the issue of Chechnya, despite the irrefutable evidence of widespread and systematic Russian atrocities there.

In the wake of Beslan, it is now clear where this silence has led. Mr. Putin cannot crush the national aspirations of the Chechens with violence and his attempt to do so will move Russia even further in the direction of the Soviet dictatorship he finds so appealing. At the same time, the lure of money and support from Islamic terrorists who have long been active in Chechnya may become irresistible for young Chechens who, because they look European, may eventually be recruited for terrorist acts in the West.

Before the shock over the murdered children of Beslan wears off, it is important for the U.S. to end its silence about Chechnya and bring maximum pressure on Moscow to enter negotiations with those moderate Chechens who are ready for a political solution to the 10-year conflict. The alternative is a cycle of unending, depraved violence that will end all hope of a decent future for Chechnya -- and for Russia as well.

Mr. Satter, affiliated with the Hoover Institution, the Hudson Institute and Johns Hopkins, is author of "Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State" (Yale, 2003).

[Serb]

Originally posted by pchang
However, it is true that both the US and UK have granted asylum to Chechen nationalists that Russia wants extradited to face charges of terrorism. The US and UK say they have no evidence that these are terrorists. However, if you listen to what those granted asylum say about the terrorist attacks, it sounds pretty suspect. In one sentence they condemn the attacks, but in the next sentence they pretty much say the attacks were justified. I say they should be extradited to face trial.

Exactly, they should be extradited. And saying that we don't have evidences is just bullsh!t. We have unbeatable evidences, vitnesses and vidotapes. Most of those ****s are also responsible not only for terrorism, but for criminal ofenses as well. What western governments basicly do is just close their eyes and keep cover them, regardles of evidences. How the hell for example, Zakaev can be considered as participant of civil war, if he commanded one of the groups that invaded Dagestan in 1999 and killed people there, while in 1999 Chechnya and Russian Federation were in peace signed in 1996?

[Geronimo]

Wall Street Journal

[Berzerker]

Why are the Chechnyans mad at the Russians?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Serb
And Oerdin, the rest of the articles dedicated to crisis on Guardian's web site are pure anti-Russian and anti-Putin bullsh!t.

If it matters the Guardian's take on all things American are equally negative and equally Bull****. Remember the Guardian's editor publicly admited that they were advocates and not journalists. They push a tilted left wing agenda because as a business they've found a market which will buy tilted left wing articles. It is a business for them and the Guardian isn't concerned about little things like fairness or journalistic impartiality.

Their self admited goal is to sell papers not search for truth or fairness in reporting. They freely play towards the hate and bias of left wing readers because doing so sells more papers. They are a tabloid but instead of specializing on articles about aliens making crop circles or anal probing rock stars they make anti American and anti Russian articles.

In the end who really cares about what is written in the Guardian?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Wall Street Journal

Those damn buisnessmen.

[Giancarlo]

What is with the anti-russian attitude amongst so called "republicans" here?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
What is with the anti-russian attitude amongst so called "republicans" here?

I'm anti-Putin, not anti-Russian. On one hand, he's more or less secured the stability of the Russian Government. Very, very, very Good. Under Yelstin it seemed to be perpetually tottering. On the other, he's shut down independent media, Invaded Chechnya (after what I suspect he gave the intiation for) with no real intention to be careful about civilian casulties, and he's a cockblock who ran in more than a few progressive politicians/buisnessmen in Moscow.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Those damn buisnessmen.

all US journalism consists of private businesses. Wall street journal does not gain any special credibility due to its target market IMHO.

Honestly Lonestar, how would this make any more sense for people working for the Russian government to do to themselves than it would for our own government to have planned and executed the 9/11 attacks? How in the hell would a public official shield themselves from the possibility of those underneath them leaking the ghastly plan to the public? The 'journalist' who wrote that editorial is demonstrating abysmal critical thinking skills.

[Serb]

Lonestar,
this article is full of lies, a perfect example of western propaganda. They CLEARLY lie about one week old events, why should I trust their lies about 1999?

[pchang]

And he totally neglected that whole Dagestan thing.