Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Haven't seen any political topics in here yet... but I'll give it a try:

The crisis in Beslan has recently ended, and it has made me think a lot about the Chechnyan situation, and what to do about it...

I'm frustrated to see that Bush's war on terror has escalated to a war with terror... not just between USA and a few fundamentalistic muslims, but between allmost all countries and a great deal of people, who for some reason believes that terror is the best way to reach their goals...

And I'm frightened of the consequences.

I have always believed that contrary to Putin's opinion, those people in Chechnya actually had a lot of reason in their demand. I never understood the concept of democratically ruling a people against their will, and I never understood why the russian goverment didn't just set Chechnya free as an independent country.

The Russian government was quick to label the Chechnen rebels 'terrorist' soon after 9/11, something i didn't like at all, at that time, because the Chechnens were fighting a guerilla war against armed troops, and not civilians.

But seing how the situation has changed, i've grown confused about what to believe in.

I don't consider the terrorist as speaking for the general people of Chechnya, but seeing what they've done, how can I ever support their cause in any way?

The russian government are doing pretty much the same thing that Bush did. It is sending armed troops to the center of the conflict. Will that solve anything?

I don't think so. It'll probably just create oppresion in Chechnya, and that will create a lot more people who are willing to do a lot worse things.

Then what?

Honestly i still feel that the russian government should give the Chechnens their land back. No more reasons to be a terrorist for those people.

But i guess the teorrists would have won then...?

What do you think would be the right solution?

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

if there was an good solution to a problem i think the path would be set.. but since.. alteast I believe there is none.

for the same reason as violents have grown and more criminal acts gets more common.. the wars between countries get less common and groups based on religion i formed..

why is this.. i think guns and hates is an deadly combination.. hate against other religion and agains those with power.. hint USA..
people with money can if they want to who ever they are can get guns.. but only if they got an goal that they think can be reached by these means they will be dangerous.. hint Bin Ladin..



you talked about another group.. i dont know much about that.. but the reason i think is freedome .. am i wrong?..


in the future we will problably see more wars between groups. and to blame we got guns that problably game from a country that produces alot of those.. and with todays knowledge almost anyone can..

its a hardworld we live in.. those who grown up with internet and computers like you and i problably is not in these groups. but those who grow up with hate to others and who are surround with missleading propaganda information could be one to fear in the future.. problem number 3.. wrongfully and bad information..

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Heyyo,

Yeah, I think the main problem with this hatred starts off as kids, cause some parents bring up their kids to be racist against different ethinick backgrounds, religion, or even counties. This is why some people seem soo thick-headed, to them they're not think-headed, they're taught that's the right thing...

If you watch the David Chapelle show, he even poked fun at people being braught up with racisim with the old black dude skit.

I also don't think that rebels are the voice of the country, cause in most cases it's just a... hmm, the word's not coming to me.. oh! extremists. Like the Jihad n' such. I also doupt that Saddam was the true voice of Iraq, cause the people seemed pretty happy when they tore down his statue... Let's hope that bush doesn't try to control Iraq's oil, cause if he does, I bet Iraq will fight to reclaim its oil....

I for one would vote kerry for pres, cause yeah, bush has turned into a war-monger, and I know some people who are voting for bush for pres cause he as experience... but to me that doesn't make sense, cause they're in Cali right? n' they voted for Arnold... who won by populairty, I dunno if he has big political experience... I also think that kerry won't start more wars n' stuff, cause he seems like a man of peace. Ack, better stop before this thread becomes a kerry vs bush thread. :P

anywho, back to the topic: I also believe that they're fighting for freedom. It's like moving out of your parents house, you've become an adult, you no longer need to rely on anyone. Same deal with the Chechnyans, just on a much more grander scale.

I don't think Russia would give up Chechnya without a fight, cause those Russians love to fight. So far, I dunno a single country that was a colony that won it's indipendence through diplomacy, instead of war... there's Canada (inna way, cause it was a colony of france, n' then england, n' so on...), and the States, and Vietnam, and the checks. (I'm not sure how accurate my info is, there's probably more examples, but I only got like, a C- in social studies on past wars n' stuff like that... :P ) This feels like a repetition of past events, just different places, n' different countries.

But have you heard about the Russianr military training camps? they litterally turn their soldiers into mindless killing machines. I read a newspaper article about a young married couple, and the military forced the man to join the military, and his wife tried to find him n' bring him back home, she couldn't find him for a couple of months, but when she did, n' braught him back home she said, "he was never the same." They like, transformed him...

So yeah, I hope that this won't be as massive as bush's campaign on terror, but I don't see this being anything less than a short war...

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

about the military training camps.. dont believe everthing you read.. i dont know where you live.. it could stil be true though.. many have low thinking of russia.. im for one have higher thoughts.. like my mother, i knew if i just name russia and communism she would crack out..

anyways.. never believe everthing you read.. hear.. think for yourself.. what could this person win by lying.. and where did he get it from.. propaganda my freinds.. it can be anywhere.. people are so easy turned by this evil and if there is something to fear then crazy drunk people.. its that..

i think i could write very long about racism and such.. but im not going too.. i just leave it here.. yea im tired..

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Heyyo,

Hmm, true, I guess it could be just a rumor, but it was my french teacher who showed the class this article cause we were studying aboot france n' the rest of europe... (like I'd read it if I was in social studies... I'm not dissin' that subject, it's just not for me cause most of those teachers bore you to sleep. :P )

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

First of all, I'm positively surprised to see such a serious thread here - it's good to see that ppl here haven't lost their sense of reality and care about more than their hobbies and harmless jokes, even in the offtopic section of some unimportant forum. This shows that ppl here aren't total geeks... and it's somehow a very reassuring feeling that there are ppl left who think. Ppl who maybe don't have the answers, but do ask the right questions.

As for that conflict, I think that Russian history has always been a history of centralism and suppression. It doesn't matter if you take a look at the era of the Czars, at the Stalin dictatorship, at the post-war Communist Soviet Union or at today's Russian "democracy". Areas (or countries, if you prefer) like the Baltic states or central Asian areas like Chechnya have never been a part of Russia according to their own will. Russian regimes ruled them by force, and at least in the Baltic states, suppressed the old national languages etc. in an effort to integrate those people into a uniform Russia more easily. (In one of those Baltic states, they are having terrible trouble to complete an official dictionary of their native language because when Stalin's troops invaded the country, they were forced to abandon their work, but they had only reached the first half of the letters in the alphabet. Now that they are free, they are trying to get the second half together and catch up on all the modern developments they don't have names for because they were not allowed to use their own language.) I have talked to a Russian guy at my university, and he said that he couldn't understand why we Germans would feel guilty because of the millions who died in the Nazis' concentration camps - he said that under Stalin, many more people died, most of all those who dared to criticise the government and/or fight (peacefully or with weapons) for more freedom.
In all those areas, people have grown to become very sceptical towards the Russian government because over several generations they have learnt that everything that comes from Moscow is likely to be suppression and death. Of course, this breeds an atmosphere of mistrust and hatred...
And in Chechnya, any independent news agency or Human Rights Organization will confirm that Russian soldiers have plundered and tortured, violated and killed innocent people. The so-called "elections" in Chechnya are a farce.
That's why I think that the Chechens have a right to fight for their freedom. However, what happened in Beslan raises the question if it's still the Chechens who fight there, and if whoever IS fighting there is fighting the correct enemy (and in an "appropriate" way). Another question is if such a way is still a viable option at all because it takes two sides to make it possible.
I fear that Islamic fundamentalists are taking over the leadership in the war for freedom and try to turn it into just another battlefield in their "holy" war (now if THAT is no oxymoron, I have never seen one!). This is a dangerous development even for the Chechens themselves because it allows politicians to justify the Russian terror towards Chechnya (for that's what the Russian troops are doing there!). This way, they can say: "Look, this has nothing to do with Chechnya; we are fighting evil fundamentalists there who have declared war on Russia, no freedom fighters." Read the news, and you will see that Putin has indeed said something in this vein already! And now he wants to fight back with more violence, and that's the worst thing he can do.
For IMHO, the solution would be negotiating a moderate and peaceful way of separating Chechnya from Russia and giving it at least partial independence, and not just as a propaganda lie, but really. You can invade a country by force, but in the long run, you can't hold an empire together by force. The Romans had to learn that, the Huns had to learn it, all countries with colonies had to learn it, and that's not the end of the line. And why is Russia interested in Chechnya anyway? Is this poor and remote province in any way vital for Russia's survival or prosperity? No, it's not! Both sides could live quite well with a peaceful separation. But as long as violence on both sides is intensifying, what should moderate freedom fighters say? As long as Russia shows that there is no peaceful way, radical fundamentalists have the better answers and will get the support of the people. It's the same in Israel, by the way.
What really makes me sad is the reason why such a solution is unlikely. It's not because Russian and Chechen people can't get along with each other, that's for sure. I bet that most civilians are fed up with all this bloodshed and the suffering - but they don't have a say. Putin has promised a quick and easy military operation to get the situation under control, and any drawback will weaken his position in domestic politics and make him lose his face because it would mean a defeat, a weakness. And just because of this, women and children suffer and die... for the sake of the reputation of one man, or let's say a government, a regime, a system... :(
And the worst thing about violence and war: One violent action never comes alone, it is always the starting point of a long line of bloodshed and death, and it sows hatred that in turn can give birth to further violence... it's like a hydra. Cutting off more heads doesn't help. Bombs and rifles cannot fight terrorism. Terrorism feeds on violence, and every shot from a gun and every explosion of a grenade or a bomb will strengthen terrorism and give it what it needs to grow and prosper... unfortunately, the Western world is giving plenty nowadays - maybe too much to reverse this development in the not-too-far future.
Amen...

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

to much to read

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

yup, so i just read yours :D

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Sissies. :D

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Actually I am, no, not apalled, I just forgot the word I was about to use. I'm sure it was shorter. Not dismayed. I thought it might start with "a". )(%$G^)&P_(*BGNY{ H~_(Jhm80}8!!1¬!!

Anyway. I got in a fight with Auxois over this. I am fed up with the ignorant (willfully that is, and those that really annoy me, stupid commoners and arrogant rich people respectively) and those that have been acting to "save the world" recently. Their conduct has been really apalling, but it isn't as if I hadn't expected it.

Anotherwords, I hope it leaves me relatively unscathed until I or someone I can influence is in a position to beat some sense into everybody. I also have vowed not to discuss real issues with forum communities, especially where I like to stick around.

Feel free to carry on, but please do not make too many current affairs topics, it'll only result in trouble.
If you think I am locked in a world of make believe or am just heartless, you failed to read this post. I care too much to see people make a hash of things, unless I just don't bother with it all.

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

This is precisely why I do not participate in these discussions.

edited for content -I got a little too angry.

Ah, well, it seems I cannot delete this. Oh well.

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

bah if they were looting a bradley i say kill em all

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Leagle, please do not make personal attacks, even if the person is not a regular member of this forum. Auxois may not be as open minded on certain matters as it would be good one be, but he has reasons, and good ones. I have learned that he lost one friend in the september 11 attacks. And he may have a very discutable opinion of the importance and conceptual integrity of "good" and "evil", he also may base too much of his political opinions out of it, he may even and that's understandable be filled with anger against anything that resembles remotely to a terrorist, that doesn't make him an ignorant nor a prat. At least ignorant, I can attest he is not.

Like Wrecks, I think it's time to ask ourselves if it would not be time to soften our rule "against" political discussions in these forums. Especially since the Bots United members have proven to be one of the most mature communities I've seen over the net. I believe political discussions (and in short any form of debate) may be possible provided everybody keeps this mature attitude towards other members. That doesn't mean we cannot curse :D but not against people, and at least always grant others the respect that is due to them. No matter what people say, respect is DUE - and not earned. - which seems logical, at least to me.

Anyway... I'll try to drop my 2 cents on this middle-east terrorism issue.

Chechnya, since we're at it. I disagree with Wrecks (and those who think that Russia has no other interest in keeping these little states under the boot of Moscow than to fullfill a sort of "tradition of hegemony"). This area retains the largest estimated source of oil of the Russian Federation, after the "withdrawal" of Afghanistan from the USSR in the 80s. One of the problems, among many others, is that many pipe-lines of this region (and I'm talking about the whole middle-east that makes the russian border) cross instable or frankly hostile countries and most of them land near the Arabia border, in the Gulf. Whether from Chechnya or Afghanistan, these pipelines have been built in the 80s by the current governments of these states, with extensive funding coming from a remote country it is useless to name. The undercovered policy of emancipation of these countries from the Soviet Union and the predictable nature of the fall of the sovietic regime made some important occidental countries (and the US are not the only ones, France was one of them) tie important diplomatic links with these countries and their neighbours such as Iran (cf the Islamic Revolution of Khomeinyi) in order to literally build a whole oil exploitation infrastructure of pipelines, plants and refineries, that would have been ready for exploitation once the little sovietic states would have finally withdrawed from the boot of the crumbling CCCP. It is a game of money and betrayals that is being played for 20 years now, which explains a lot of the interest the Occident has for countries like Afghanistan... and Iraq, since many of these pipelines were running under Saddam's feet. That explains also why France always entertained ambiguous relations with the Iraki dictatorship. Not counting the Osirak nuclear plant... but that's another story.

These countries are RICH. At least POTENTIALLY rich. Their problem is that they never had the initial funding necessary to build these minimal infrastructures and start exploiting their oil resources... that's where foreign funding comes in. And that's where all the usurer agreements have been made. It is vital for Russia to hold Chechnya as part of the Federation, as Putin doesn't want the 80's Afghanistan scenario to come back: the red army forced to retreat behind the mountains, hence beyond the oil fields, from a country initially occupied by force, and the russian economy unable to survive to the consequent crash - which was not the main reason of the fall of russian communism, but one of them, and not among the lesser ones.

It is also vital for we occidental countries to have a hand, or at least some sort of control, or even if impossible to do better, very strong diplomatic ties of the nature of "man in debt <=> lender", over ALL the governments of the Middle East... except Saudi Arabia, since it's long known that the cheiks who rule the peninsula are WAY too wealthy to be controlled by any mean. They have tried, in the 70s... :)

The Middle East is the most eloquent place on earth where the word "geopolitics" takes all its meaning. And chances that it will be so until the end of the fossil oil era (which won't be long, since in only 200 years we've emptied more than 50% of reserves that took BILLION years to grow, and in the past 50 years, about 50% of this amount. And the consumption is NOT likely to slow down, rather likely to explode with the arrival of about 1,000,000,000 chinese wanting their own car - to count only them).

Now on why people would want to team up, take arms and blast themselves among children, one can only conjecturate on the reasons.

If we listen to them, what seems clear - what is said VERBATIM - in their speech is that they say they do it in the name of Allah. No matter how I twist the facts, I can't elude that there is an abyssal gap between ETA (Basque terrorists in Spain) bombings against empty buildings, FLNC (Corse terrorists in France) gunnings of empty police offices, and planned, cold-minded and generalized massacres of innocent people which for all are perpetrated in the name of a god, a religion, a sect or a belief.

These people obviously don't want and don't seem to care about short or middle-term privileges. In fine, they want the control of the world and nothing less. The very act they are committing is a necessary step on this road, an accepted step in which they know they will meet their death, but will do it gladly provided it is for the benefit of their struggle comrades, and -so they believe-, by extension, the world. They long for the supremacy of Islam (or buddhism, or christianism, or {insert your favourite sect name here}). Their revendications are unfullfillable. They are convinced that everybody's life would be pink would Islam be the one and only imposed religion on Earth, just like the early communists were convinced that mankind could reach an era of peace and prosperity by forcing people into communism through armed means. Except that the commies were right on one point: there is an exploitation of man by man.

I understand perfectly that one can believe that accepting to die for a cause larger than oneself is a noble attitude. Don't get me wrong here. There are several examples of "noble" causes in the past.

Middle-age knights were dying for their lord. Meanwhile each one had slaughtered 200 or 300 pedestrians among their enemies. Such massacres never even touched their fame and their glory. After all, who, what, did they massacre ? Mecreants, vile people. No interest.

The first crusade (I believe the instigators were pope Leon the 1st and the emperor of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire) never made it to its goal - which was Jerusalem. The crusaders were farmers, workers, township citizens, knights, mercenaries, monks and workless people, and among them an incommensurable amount of poor. The pope had simply promised the absolute forgiving of sins and the emperor lands and domains in foreign countries for everybody. Hence all this joyful band of defenders of Christ ravaged all the countries they passed through, plundering the farms, burning the banks, raping the inhabitants, one knight settling somewhere and deciding that such castle was from now on his, leaving the crusade, and this all the way until Constantinople, where they didn't even pass the Hellespont since the inhabitants of Turkey had heard of their fame long before they came and decided to massacre them all. The job was quickly done, since none of them would obey to any command, and the commanders had long left the crusade anyway. The christian world still remembers the 1st crusade as an act of faith and deep religiosity, perpetrated by men of valor. I'm not joking.

One last example coming straight from the dictionary: the word "chauvinism", which comes from a soldier of the imperial guard of Napoleon the 1st, who after having conquerred the entire Europe until Moscow has finally been defeated several years later by the coalition of the former eastern europe kings and emperors in Waterloo ; Napoleon's troops were decimated, only a square of 10 guards would remain, one of them, Nicolas Chauvin, when asked to surrender, even surrounded by thousands of men in arms, would refuse and scream out ridiculously that he would die for his emperor (no matter the fact that the emperor was completely defeated this time). He did, indeed, meet his death after the prussian soldiers disarmed him and after being offered freedom, he stupidly aggressed the first one he could with his hands, still screaming out hails about his beloved emperor.

Is it necessary to add the hundred thousands of people who felt in whichever war, or these generals who are praised by one country's history as great men of valor, where in the other, former enemy country, these same men are depicted in history books as butchers and sanguinary people ?

These terrorists are not killing children, women or civilians. They are killing enemies. These enemies are not armed like them with Kalashnikov or Nikonov rifles, but these children, women and civilians, by the only act of existing, confirm everyday, attest, legitimize and reinforce the world order they hate. These are the people who buy stuff. These are the people who eat meat. These are the people who live in houses that belong to them. These are the people who can send their children to school, where they are taught to be joyful, obeying and autosufficient consumers. And more efficiently, these are the people who do NOT share the only thing they are still allowed to have: religion. They are definitely too different. Nothing in common. Enemies. Kill 'em all.

I'm not advocating any form of terrorism and I am certain everyone here understands my point. I am making conjectures on how such phenomenons can find their way through a human being's mind. Just wild guesses. And when I mean ANY form of terrorism, I mean ANY. Stricto sensu, the blind war of Occident "against terrorism" is also a form of terrorism. For the very reasons they must be exterminated are the very reasons the terrorists may have to exterminate us.

I cannot propose a solution to this problem (who am I for that ?) but anybody who has a slight glimpse of lucidity can have a recursive look on history and see what works and what not.

I once made a post on Nuclearbox in a heated discussion about the situation in the occupied territories in Israel. That was the first post I made in the anti-terrorism section of these forums. God I wish I would never have made this mistake. But I have good hopes things won't end the same here, so here goes, more or less, what I was saying :

Question 1.
What did we witness, globally and objectively, in the Middle East when the Israeli minister Rabin was leading peace talks with the Palestinian leader Arafat ? Were there more, or less, bombings during this era ? Have things gone worse, or better ?

Question 2.
What have we been witnessing, globally and objectively, in the Middle East when the Israeli minister Sharon is refusing any contact with the Palestinian leader Arafat ? Are there more, or less, bombings nowadays ? Have things gone worse, or better ?

Question 3.
What was, globally and objectively, the security of occidental people abroad like, before the 11th september raids and before any form of intensive repression against global terrorism became the motto of some of the most influential occidental countries ? Were there more, or less, terrorist attacks ? Was our security worse, or better ?

Question 4.
What has been, globally and objectively, the security of occidental people abroad like, after the 11th september raids and after any form of intensive repression against global terrorism became the motto of some of the most influential occidental countries ? Are there more, or less, terrorist attacks ? Is our security worse, or better ?

Question 5.
Would the occident have not engaged his war against terrorism by other means than the usual police investigation, what do you think that, globally and objectively, the security of occidental people would be like now ? Would there be more, or less, terrorist attacks ? Would there be more, or less, terrorists ? Would there be more, or less, hatred in the world against the occident and America in particular ? Would our security be worse, or better ?

Answering right these few questions may be of some importance, after all.


Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

He does not have good reasons. He is not being "close minded" he is a bigot and a fool. He has shown this on several occasions. I am not angry because he banned me, (for disagreeing with him reasonably no less) but because he typified his order and proved the points I did not want to make. Also he was too stubborn to even accept that in a country where manual labour is cheap, it is used. Bah! Comparing such circumstances to western business ideas (which I shall tell you now, were flawed) is foolish, as is starting ,(yes, an administrator starting) a flame war over it is, well, frankly unacceptable.

[edit] I am a forgiving and understanding person, I do not claim to be erudite, but I do require certain standards. I'd happily share a bottle of vodka with an american, (well, beer, they don't really like their spirits as much) or tea with an arab.

I am fed up with these people who slag off muslims, citing their religeon when the same people spout christian bullshit (This is not an attack on christianity itself, which, like any religeon is terribly flawed) and use it to excuse themselves.

I deleted my 2nd post btw. This is exactly why I try and avoid these discussions. I suppose this is one thing Auxois did well -a seperate forum for "War on terror" stuff specifically, not just offtopic/current affairs.

Perhaps it is something to think about Pierre, if the consensus is to continue discussing such topics. I would not mind lumping it with current affairs however, as the behaviour of this forum is refreshingly good. ;)

Otherwise I do implore people to go to www.nuclearbox.com where there is a dedicated forum to bigotry, flame wars and general ignorance. (And the occasional intelligent discussion, I'm trying to get you to go there after all:D )

[edit] By ignorant I mean willfully ignorant, as in, choosing to be a fool, not failing to know of the facts/topic/etc. He most definately fits the descriptor of "prat".

I take it doe not function here, it seems to have mangled my link. I guess I am behind the times. (since edited, of course.)

(actually I give up, I can't seem to get the link to work. Whatever, I'm sure you all know where it is anyway, start of the fun and all that. just copy and paste if you don't)

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Leagle, I don't think this topic is the place to express whatever problems you have with this Auxois-person.

/ontopic

First of all, thanks for some great answers, especially wrecks and pmb. I really appreciate that you are willing to take the time and share you opinions on the subject... I always learn a lot of things i didn't know and get to see things from angles i haven't looked at before...

I've been thinking about your replys... Lot's of stuff to consider... I'll try to write some thoughts down, although i don't have a general idea to express...

I tend to agree with you, wrecks... War breeds war... if we ever want peace it's the world leaders who need to take the initiative, cause the teorrists wont...

I guess that's what you're suggesting too, PMB.

What i don't understand is why Russia don't put the cards down on the table and offer Chechnya their freedom, as long as they agree to trade some oil to russia... I might not gain any a big economical boom out of that deal, but think of economic military expenses, not to mention the lives, that can be saved...

But's I guess that's just where politics get in the way of a better world.

Honestly i never quite understood nations habit of revenging... Why did the us have to go and bomb those peasants? - well it's quite clear what the reason was, but did they really have to?

I've been thinking a lot about what makes a fundamentalist... It seems to me people here are just stating the obvious about terrorists without asking why a human being actually could do such a thing...
I'm of the opinion that being in the same situation as they are, we'd probably all be terrorists... It's their situation that's the relevant thing here.

I believe that human beings always try to find some kind of reason with their existance. Most turn to several different things... to excell in society, religion, friends, family... accomblishments of personal goals. But what if you're living under condisions where you can hardly feed youself and have no way of ever making your situation change just the tiniest bit to the better?
Then there's only one place to turn... religion.

Now that isn't nessecarely a bad thing. I do believe a great deal of people are finding a lot of help through religion, but unfortunately some doesn't have anything to get through, they'll just stay in. I believe that situation would lead to despair in anyone. Their religion will probably be the only thing that makes them stay alive at that point. There aren't any other reasons left.

No wonder despair turns to blind righteous hate when against those who opress them, or those who they are told, opresses their religion.

I don't know any terrorist personally so i don't have any proof that my theory is right, but i have never found any other explanation why anybody could fly airplanes into buildings and kill children...

And then what point does it make to bomb them?

It's like spoonfeeding their hate.

I'm a idealistic person... I honestly believe that if we supported poor countries with the money we spend on weapons, we won't need those weapons we wont have... I hope.

But i guess that's a pretty long-term plan... And the results probably won't show in time for the next election... There goes the democratic process of making a better world... but that's offtopic.

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Let us not discuss Auxois any more. I was going to clarify a few things, but I don't really want to indulge that sort of thing any more than we have already.

If you want something more terrorism related, the Britghton bomb thing just finished on BBC1. I'd like to point out that the bomber garners my respect for not being a "fundamentalist", whether through ideals or religeon. I don't condone terrorism of course, but I do feel that the term "inhuman and especially cruel (monster was mentioned at some point too)" is more applicable to many of the so-called-heroes running around today.
This is coming from a person who feels strongly that some of the people in terrorist organisations should be dragged out and shot, (not that I'd advocate this being done of course) if merely for perpetuating the sort of attitude that condones the continuation of conflict. (you will note however, that just because I apply this to terrorists does not mean I have chosen to be "with them or against them".)
This is a view that I apply to any who utter similar thoughts. They disgust me, I loathe them. Funny, isn't it, how they all sound the same. Whenever they rub my nose in their patriotic crap, or their bloody eternal truths that give them "rights".

You do note however, that I do not advocate their killing, or their harm. Ah well.

*cough*www.nuclearbox.com*ahem*

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Would somebody please tell Tundra_crisis over at the box in his topic "Russia finally understanding" that Russsia has been "understanding" the situation for a lot longer than america. You don't have to shout at him, just tell him he should perhaps have realised that Russia has been blowing the shit out of things on the subject a lot longer than the states have.

(Not that I think is a good thing really, but I feel strongly that somebody should point it out to him. Russia did not just "wake up". It has been awake and shooting at things for quite a while now!)

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Heyyo,

I read the replies by twrecks n' pmb, those were very beautiful speaches guys, gj, I read every word, which is rare cause when posts are longer than 3 paragraphs I tend to skip... but the insight.. it was worth the 30-50 mins reading. :)

Exilibur, I think the main reason why Russia doesn't wanna give up Chechnya without a fight is like PMB said, all the money that has gone into laying those pipelines, and the rest of the oil industry there, Russia considers Chechnya'soil theirs.

Just like most people think about the states war with iraq, it's for recources, and money. Just like past wars, I remember hearing this one war, where 2 countries fought for tea... I'm not sure which countries, I think it's England n' France... I hope someone here knows the one I'm talking about...

and as the us bombing peasants n' stuff, it's just like PMB said, to them they're all justs enemies, kill them all.....

I'm starting to believe the only way conflicts for oil will end is when the world runs out of oil... after those run out, I bet russia, and the states will have no use for Chechnya, and Iraq....

An interesting song that I just heard onna radio station called megarock (www.myamericanradio.net) was called "system of a down - boom!" and it's about how bad war and detruction has become nowadays... one of the most powerful lines of the lyrics to it is: "Why must we kill our own kind?" next was Slayer, but that's offtopic so I'll stop. ;)

[OFFTOPIC]
I used to go to CS talk at nukebox, cause it had good discussions, I've recently went back to see if it became anymore mature... nope... still people claiming their 1337, and usp's better than the glock, n' so on in heated discussions... but at least I helped a few people with probs like models n' sprites... I think I'll just stick to PODbot problem solving at nukebox... I'd rather be helpful than angered... less stressful :P

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

hehe.. system of a down is good.. that song i dont have though..

in need of money..

CS is noob freindly.. and since one will become more leet.. knowing and older.. it will feel like more of them is noobs.. mostly an age thing..

you cannot participate in discussion when too many is to young to handle that someone else got another oppinion then himself.. flame war beginns..

i feel this got into another direction.. but i must say i cant handle "kids" who got imature ways to discuss on the net..

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Well, I'm still not convinced that oil is the real reason behind the Chechnya crisis and behind the war on Iraq, although it is certainly a factor that favoured those wars. All the money that went into building those pipelines through Chechnya... what's that compared to the money that went into building those pipelines that deliver oil and gas from the farthest regions of Siberia towards the west? Not much, I would guess, especially because pipelines through permafrost territories like the Siberian Taiga are more difficult to maintain and to repair.
Besides, I haven't heard of a single terrorist attack in Chechnya that was aimed at oil pipelines or refineries. AFAIK, they were all against Russian policemen and soldiers - and civilians.
I've read that Russia had a contract with Chechnya that permitted the Chechens to use 120,000 metric tons of oil per year for their own purpose as a recompensation for the strategically and economically important pipeline. Given the enormous losses of oil and gas in Siberia due to run-down facilities and frequently damaged pipelines, I would guess that those 120,000 tons weren't something that threatened to break the neck of Russian economy.
IMHO, a much more important role in this game is played by the separatist tendencies of many former USSR provinces in central asia. If Putin permits Chechnya to leave Russia and become an independent state, many more ethnic groups that were once forced to become parts of the USSR would see their chance to break free and follow Chechnya's example. I still think this game is about power and control, and only marginally about oil.
And any claims saying that Chechnya would drift off into anarchy (or worse, into a fundamentalist Islamic state that breeds terror) without Russian troops providing some "order" (yeah, right) are quite hypocritical IMHO. At the moment, they may even be true, that's the saddest part. But why is that? Did the Russian intervention focus on pro-Russian economic interests and leave civilians in peace? Did Putin ever leave room for a moderate Chechen leader to take matters into his hands, negotiate with the Russians and keep the rebels under control? Not that I know of. If they had taken care of the civilians, built schools and protected civilians instead of torturing them for nothing, killing them for dubious reasons or abducting and violating them, things might look different. Unfortunately, however, they did the opposite. And now, even another lie may become true... It's nothing unusual for government leaders to blame those groups that they are fighting anyway (with or without reasons) for anything that happens in order to cover up what's really going on and get the support of the population:
Bush did so when he made Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11 (which was obvious nonsense, as Hussein led a regime that was quite hostile towards religion and Al-Qaeda is a network of religious fundamentalists). But Bush and his cronies are buried waist-deep in unpleasant relationships with the Bin Laden clan, so admitting that this very Osama Bin Laden they had supported before was the initiator of the terrorist attacks would have made them look very, very bad... a scapegoat was needed, and while I'm typing this, people in Iraq are dying as a consequence. (Of course, Hussein, who had also been supported by the US to provide a counterpart against Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in the 80's (who came to power by leading a revolution that overthrew the corrupt government that had been installed by, you guess whom - the USA!) had given the USA other reasons to have a bone to pick with him...)
Aznar, Spain's ex-president (I like the "ex" part particularly) did so when he blamed those horrible train bombings in Madrid on ETA terrorists before even one piece of evidence was found. Why did he do so? Because he readily joined Bush in his "holy war" against Hussein, although of all European countries, Spain was the one where people were most definitely against the war (some 85 - 90 %, according to official numbers). But he gave a shit about his people's will (as usual) in order to look good as a strong ally of the USA (at the same time also giving a shit about what became known under the term "old Europe" thanks to that idiot Rumsfeld) ). And what happened? The war came back to Spain - and he couldn't admit that the bombings had been committed by Islamic fundamentalists because then people would have realized that his arrogant denial of their will and his boot-licking attitude to the US killed - whom? Him? Ha, no! Of course, the very innocent civilians that wanted him to say no to the war on Iraq!
And now, Putin is interestingly eager to deny everything that has to do with Chechen rebels. In his official statements about Beslan, not even the word "Chechnya" appeared! Why not? Because he is pretending that things are going fine, and the Chechen people revolting against Russia is an image that doesn't fit into his propaganda scheme. So what to do? Easy. After the war on Iraq, government leader worldwide have almost unlimited freedom to do anything if only they can claim that it's a part of the "war against terrorism". Now if he manages to tell everybody that all of a sudden and for no apparent reason, Islamic terrorists have chosen to attack Russia, he will receive support for his politics. ATM, it looks like he's having success. "Terrorism" has become a slogan that seems to deactivate the brains of people. It's a diffuse and undefinable threat (diffuse and undefinable is ideal for politics!), and with the campaign against this threat, you can get support even from those that would normally be your political opponents.
But that's not all...
Before the war on Iraq, there was no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden. But now, the lie has become a truth. Now Iraq has become a macabre playground for Islamic fundamentalists, many of which are likely to support Al-Qaeda at least ideology-wise.
And I fear that the situation in Chechnya might develop into a similar scenario.
This is bad in two respects: First, it means more terrorist actions. Second, it makes those "fighters against terrorism" like Bush and Putin look like they had always said the truth and encourage them to intensify the fight. This, in turn, will breed more hat and fanatism on the other side... and the viscious circle is accelerating...

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

wow, nice post, wrecks, but please, pleeeease put spaces in your posts, it makes it so much more readable :)

Well, as nietzche concludes: all mans actions are based on a desire for power... (Just to mention it and seem clever ;))

As i understand the first part of your post, if Putin gives Chechnya freedom and liberty, he looses a tiny bit of his power, so he's not gonna do that...

That pretty much leaves this conflict unsolvable.

You don't think that there's any solutions to this problem?

If no, then what do you think will happen in the future?
Will the terror just escalate like it's doing right now?

sounds pretty depressing :(

The second part of your post is very interesting, and i agree with you a lot of the places, but one think makes me wonder.

The spanish president blamed the attack on ETA because he had a point in doing that. Now why doesn't Putin point the finger at Chechnyan terrorists?
what exactly does he win by pointing the finger at islamic groups instead?
Doesn't he need a reason to send more armed troops down there?
I agree with you that he is pointing a al queda though, but why?

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Because even admitting that there is a rebellion going on in Chechnya -still, after so many years- would prove his claims that Chechnya is under control and the military operation has been a success to be wrong. It's easy for him to justify a military operation which has been intensified with the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism on Russia if acts of terrorism committed by Chechen rebels have disappeared.

Then he can say "ok, folks: We sent even more troops down there, but as you can see, the situation is under control now, and those Chechens are no longer a threat, thanks to me. Your sons are there for a good purpose, i.e. to solve the Chechnya conflict by military means."

But all of a sudden, Chechen terrorism escalates - now how does that look? Wouldn't mothers, fathers, wives & girlfriends say: "Hey, Mr. President! You said that our men were risking their lives in Chechnya for a good reason and that everything is under control now. But it seems like your oh-so-glorious military operation was a total failure - we don't see less terror, we see more! The situation seems to be further away from being under control than ever!" (remember PMB's questions, btw!)

What's the solution? The ongoing rebellion must be denied, and at the same time some legitimation for giving even more power to the military and the secret service, as well as even more severe censorship of the media (which is always good if you want to stay in power) must be found - the perfect role for evil Al-Qaeda terrorists!

But as I said, I fear that by calling them he might get what he's calling for eventually, just like it happened in Iraq.


The solution... yes, that's difficult. What's most difficult is that every step forwards into chaos and terrorism requires at least five steps backwards to make it undone, and not even on a linear scale... the efforts needed to reverse the trend are increasing with every step that's made in the wrong direction. Look at Northern Ireland: The situation there is still tense, and that's centuries after the English started to settle there and fight the Irish, starting this conflict that lasts till today.

Some factors that favour a relative (albeit fragile) peace there are moderate living standards (no hunger, no dramatic poverty), that it's right in the middle of Europe, where many countries have a watchful eye on it, and that it's being reigned by a kind of democratic government and even has some particular regional privileges that enable both sides to cope with conflicts in a peaceful way. There are moderate leaders like Gerry Adams who are tolerated by the English government. And last but not least, the educational standard is fairly good.

In Chechnya, how much of this applies? But Putin will not be in power forever, and who says that his laws (which lead more and more towards a dictatorship with democratic façade) will not be reversed one day by a future government? After all, it's the first time for centuries that Russia has a "democratic" constitution... the first time Germany had one lasted roughly 20 years and ended in WW II... and Germany is right in the middle of Europe and a very "governable" country... it's small in size, has a good infrastructure and pretty nice living standards. Besides, it has no long tradition as a unified (and thus, centralized) country - unlike Russia! Thus, the odds that our second democratic experience will be longer and more peaceful are good. But in Russia, things are a bit different, especially in the remote provinces. Russia is hard to govern, and its history is one of long centralism and autoritary regimes. I don't expect any significant progress during Putin's presidency, and even afterwards, it might take decades.

Peace is slow... you can push it a bit, of course. But so far the West remains rather silent... which brings us back to the pipeline thing: Where do these pipelines pump their oil? :| Bingo. (again, see Pierre's remarks)

Oh, btw - enough spaces? :D

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Guys, the very best forum I found for discussing politics and news stories (and a whole lot more) is here:

http://www.libertyforum.org

You can speak your mind freely and won't ever get banned. The only rules are that you cannot try and sell things, and you cannot threaten people with violence.

There's an entire spectrum of points of view, including Auxious-like people if you want to engage in debating with that type. Remember no banning, so if you want to tell some ignorant redneck to jump in a lake (and much worse of course) you can do so freely.

Enjoy 8)

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Hmmm... thanks for the offer, but people like this Auxois guy (or whatever he was called, whoever that might be) are exactly what I'm NOT looking for. Being able to tell some narrow-minded redneck to go soak his head is not what I would enjoy. I enjoy discussing things without narrow-minded rednecks spoiling everything. The problem is that with this kind of people, you just can't discuss. It's pointless; they don't accept any arguments, they would never even consider changing their opinion, and they don't accept any opinion that differs from theirs because they think that they're the only ones who are right. If you prove them wrong in each and every point, what do you gain? Nothing, because they just wouldn't accept it anyway. Even if you could show them the truth and prove it - they would just deny it and continue.

I guess I prefer an occasional political topic discussed among a reasonable non-political community over 100% political topics in a spiteful, moron-infected and aggressive atmosphere...

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

amen..

heh :D

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Heyyo,

Yeah, I'm glad some places on the net are still sacred from forum flamers, or I'd have to spend my whole time being cocky when I win at www.pokerroom.com Lol, I'm just cocky when I start stuff, like, in halo I'mma pretty nice guy now, I do lots of complimenting, it's only a matter of time ti'll it's so with pokerroom. :P

One of these days, I'mma play for real money, n' start being able to pay for my own car through this.. oh yes, someday. ;)

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

haha yaeh that was pretty much as spacey as i could ever want ;)

Democracy takes time... that's very true. I liked your comparison with germany... I've just been through the same era in danish history (with two wars against germany btw ;)) and it's pretty much the same story...

What's important is that democracy comes from the inside... cause then, even when it fails the first time, there will still be a desire...

The problem here is that the Chechnens don't want russian democracy... they want Chechnyan democracy.

The sad thing about this is that even if a second democracit expirence will be more peaceful, we still have to wait until that day...

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Yup.
Bombarding people to democracy. Haha. Hello George ???

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

i wish we would do that more often

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

Don't worry, the rednecks are in a minority. Most of the people at LF are great to talk to and it is the best place to talk politics and get educated about what's really going on that I've seen yet.

Re: Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?
 

How do you mean this? ???:(

@botmeister: Sounds good - gotta take a closer look. :)