Chechnya crisis - What's the solution?

[Leagle]

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.

[-=RAV=-AdrianShephard]

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

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

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 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.

They are definitely too different. Nothing in common. Enemies. Kill 'em all.

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.

[Leagle]

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

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.

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 )

[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)

[Exilibur]

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.

[Leagle]

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*

[Leagle]

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!)

[MarD]

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

[TruB]

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..

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

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...