The Chechens' American friends

[Serb]

Hmmm kinda weird- first article is absolute crap, while the second one is almost accurate.
Does fox really sucks so badly in comparison with cnn?

[TheStinger]

Most of the ones we do send back were lying about what happened to them so when they got back nothing happened to them. All that happens is that in some cases it is decided that an individual(however much he happens to be a complete ****er) may be tortured or persecuted on return and therefore under our international obligations we can't send him back.

I am unaware of the case of the chap Zakev but i would say there are many countries in the world who have refused to extradite IRA suspects for what I guess are similar raesons. Of couses the "good ol war on terror" USA did this. But then again the landmark ECHR decision on torture related to the treatment of IRA suspects so perhaps fair enough.

[lord of the mark]

1. Im really tired of the US press calling terrorists "militants". I dont see how the neocons are responsible for this however.

2. Serb seems to think that those who call for a negotiated settlement in Chechnya, and who criticize Russian actions in Chechnya necessarily support Basayev and the terrorists.

Yet Russia calls for a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Pals, and criticizes Israeli actions that are far less harsh than what Russia has done in Chechnya. Does THAT mean that Russia supports Hamas and its "suicide" bombers? I wouldnt say so, but that seems to be the implication of the above logic.

3. Supporting the views of Nemtsov and others on economic and political liberalization doesnt imply agreement with everything the Russian liberals say.

4. The Guardian may not be pro-Putin, but it has a huge ax to grind with the neo-cons, and doesnt seem to be a fan of economic liberalization. Richard Perle is certainly among their "betes noirs".

5. Criticism of Putin from Russian newspapers doesnt prove there has not been oppression of the press. One reads here that he has virtually eliminated opposition TELEVISION, not newspapers.


6. And yes, Id like to see Zekaev and others like him extradited. Are neo cons stopping that?

[pchang]

There appears to be credible evidence (videotapes) that Zakaev killed prisoners (if he was in a civil war) or hostages (if he is a terrorist). In either case, there is credible evidence that he did something illegal. It appears the UK wants to consider the attacks in Dagestan a civil war and so does not consider him guilty of terrorism or murder. However, killing prisoners is clearly a violation of Geneva Convention and would make him a war criminal. But, Russia in no way wants to consider the attacks in Dagestan a civil war, and certainly does not want Zakaev referred to the Hague. In the meantime, Zakaev lives the life of a free man in the UK (I believe London).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Of couses the "good ol war on terror" USA did this.

And that is a black mark on the USA, and AFAIK was not supported by the neocons. It WAS supported by some American pols who have much better reps in Europe, like Ted Kennedy, IIUC.

[pchang]

It was supported by any American pol whose constituency had a large number of Irish Catholics in it. And thus, by extension, it was supported by a large number of Irish Catholics.

[Berzerker]

First of all, welcome to my list of hopeless.

Hi folks.

Secondly, did I talk about 19th century there?

No, kinda interesting omission don't you think? You seem to think centuries of Russian atrocities are unrelated to the atrocities now and I see them linked.

I've expressed my views about the modern conflict. What are you doing is just a whining about Russian evilness through the centuries and about "since Russia is bigger it's wrong by definition".
Pretty wise aproach.

Most certainly wise, what happened in the past is likely the cause of what is happening today. Funny how history works like that...

Go and explore the site. I hope it will provide you some info about the history of Chechnya, the history of Russian-Chechen relationships through centuries and the history of modern conflict. My own version is just my own view, there you'll find the more detailed story.

I read your links. The Russians have been butchering Chechens for centuries and you think the Russians are oppressed by Chechens. Go figure...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker



No, kinda interesting omission don't you think? You seem to think centuries of Russian atrocities are unrelated to the atrocities now and I see them linked.



Most certainly wise, what happened in the past is likely the cause of what is happening today. Funny how history works like that...



I read your links. The Russians have been butchering Chechens for centuries and you think the Russians are oppressed by Chechens. Go figure...

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. 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? 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?

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. Serb seems to think that those who call for a negotiated settlement in Chechnya, and who criticize Russian actions in Chechnya necessarily support Basayev and the terrorists.

Ok, with whom we should negotiate, and about what?
Can you prove that remaining gangs of terrorists represent the will of majority of Chechen population?
Can you prove that majority of Chechen population support the terrorists in their campaign of terror against Russia and thus support the goal of terrorists- re-creation of thier rule and restoration of thier Taliban type state, like they had in 1996-1999?
If they do not represent the will of majority of Chechen population, why should we negotiate with them? Why we should fall into their demands?
If they represent the will of majority of Chechen population, how do you explain that majority of Chechen popultaion approved constitution which says that Chechnya is part of Russia and participated in election of Chechen presidents twice?
We already negotiated with persons whom we considered moderate and who didn't support terroristm. One of such persons was Ahmad Kadyrov who fought agaist Russians during first war, and furthermore, who was the spiritual leader of all Chechens in the first war. Later, absolute majority of Chechen population elected him as their president.
Why the hell we should negotiate with terrorists? Should Spain negotiate with ****s who blew their trains? Should US negotiate with ObL?

Yet Russia calls for a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Pals, and criticizes Israeli actions that are far less harsh than what Russia has done in Chechnya. Does THAT mean that Russia supports Hamas and its "suicide" bombers? I wouldnt say so, but that seems to be the implication of the above logic.

Russia do not support any form of terrorism. I may be wrong, I'm not really sure, but from what I know the right of Pals to have their own state was confirmed by UN and Russia, USA and EU are trying to stop the violence and find political solution. I'm not sure that Russia agitating for negotiations with Hamas or any other terrorists.

3. Supporting the views of Nemtsov and others on economic and political liberalization doesnt imply agreement with everything the Russian liberals say.

Nemtsov was among the ****s who ruined and pillaged my country during Eltsin's rule. In other words... nevermind. I'm not a fan of him.

5. Criticism of Putin from Russian newspapers doesnt prove there has not been oppression of the press. One reads here that he has virtually eliminated opposition TELEVISION, not newspapers.

Blah...two TV chanels were closed becuase their owners are ****s who wanted in Russia for their economical crimes during reign of Yeltsin. And it's a Putin's fault that those two ****s are criminals who pillaged Russia for ten years and stolen billions of $$$?
And btw, he is criticized on TV too, not only in papers or web.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Serb
Russia do not support any form of terrorism. I may be wrong, I'm not really sure, but from what I know the right of Pals to have their own state was confirmed by UN and Russia, USA and EU are trying to stop the violence and find political solution. I'm not sure that Russia agitating for negotiations with Hamas or any other terrorists.

It's sort of funny. People kvetching about Chechnia couldn't just be trying to 'stop the violence and find a political solution' as well?

What a shock that people who blow up children with homicide bombs, or other acts of terrorism, are not seen as reliable people to negotiate with.

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It's sort of funny. People kvetching about Chechnia couldn't just be trying to 'stop the violence and find a political solution' as well?

We already found the political solution with majority of population of Chechnya- the solution is to stay in Russia, not in Taliban-like "state" they lived between 1996-1999. Most of them voted for this on referendum. Why should we find political solution with small terrorist groups that do not represent the will of entire population? Why?
Had most of the Chechens wanted to live in their independent Taliban type state, they would fought for this state when Russians entered Chechnya in 1999. Don't you understand that the reason why Maskhadov and co, switched to terrorist tactics, is that most of the Chechens refused to fight for this gang of bastards and their independent medieval nightmare thay called independent Ichkeriya? In 1994, most of the Chechens supported them and there was a full scale partisan war, which Russians simply couldn't win, becuase nobody can win war against entire people, except to completely exterminate this people.
There was war, everyday between 1994-1996, becase Russians fought vs. entire Chechen people (well, not vs. entire, but vs. majority for sure). It doesn't happen now. There is no full scale partisan warfare of 1994-1996 type, now in Chechnya, becuase most of the people already lived in Maskhadov's kind of independent Chechnya between 1996-199, know perfectly wtf is this, and don't want more of this sh!t anymore. It's the only reason why Maskhadov and co, switched to terrorism, becuase they have no alternative, because they know they are just a banch of desperates- this time their own people against them.
Why should we negotiate with this gang of desperates, who killing our children.
And how the hell it could be called "negotiation", if the only acceptable result of such negotiations for them is re-creation of their rule, recreation of their beloved Taliban-type state? It should be called "capitulation". Why don't you say that "Russia shoud surrender to terrorists", why hiding this under "Russia should negotiate" BS?

[Serb]

Originally posted by 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. 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? 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?

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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb
It's pretty stupid, becuase when something smells like sh!t and looks like sh!t it definetly deserves to be called sh!t.

I don't think many atlases would carry through with renaming your country 'sh!t', some would deem it offensive...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Serb
And how the hell it could be called "negotiation", if the only acceptable result of such negotiations for them is re-creation of their rule, recreation of their beloved Taliban-type state? It should be called "capitulation". Why don't you say that "Russia shoud surrender to terrorists", why hiding this under "Russia should negotiate" BS?

I'm not suggesting that Russia should be expected to negotiate or find accommodation with these scum. Why do you expect Israel to negotiate and find accommodation with Arafat?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't think many atlases would carry through with renaming your country 'sh!t', some would deem it offensive...

I don't think you should be called insulting ******, some would deem it offensive...