Chechen Rebels go too far

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 1 2004, 08:46 PM
Well, the Jews were heading to 'Israel' en masse, well before World War II. They just started buying up the land from the rich landowners, who mostly lived in Syria or Turkey. After WWII, the process was sped up quite a bit, mostly due to Jewish organizations who encouraged emigration to Israel. UN support for a Jewish state had no bearing on whether or not it was established. The British made way for the creation of the state through their pro-Jewish policies when they had control of the region before and after WWII.

80-100 years is nothing when considering the actual history of this region. Jews often cite their right to the area going back to biblical times. If something happened centuries ago (like the illegal seizure of Texas from Mexico by the US), then its basically bygone. However, if it happened in recent memory (people still alive who were there at the start) then its not really history, its more current events. I've got a degree in History and a degree in Political Science. I don't consider anything 'historical' unless it happened before the 1900's, as events that occurred this century still profoundly affect our current thoughts and actions, and therefore, imo, fall under the category of political science, even if they happened decades ago.

I guess you and myself aren't going to agree on this. Historical to me covers anything thats happened from the very recent past, to the distant path. but I don't have multiple degree's in History and PS :unsure:

In my view, the settlement of the jewish nation may have been spearheaded by the British and the American's, but the UN had a responsibility to ensure the security of that region, and they failed it and have continued to fail it badly.

The jews have just as many religiously significantly and historically significant landmarks and sites in that region. In fact you could argue, that the Jews were there first, but were chased out.

So do they have a historical right to that area, sure just like the natives have historical land claims here.

The diference was that the Jews, bought the land, and had thier claims recognized.

The latest argument is that historically Palestines have a legitimate claim to land in Jordan. Should they get it, possibly, but they won't unless Jordanians are stupid enough to start selling it to them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 1 2004, 08:50 PM
It is really hard for me to so poor Russians because the way their army has acted over in that part of the world is abhorent, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of taking civilians as hostages, something which is all to common in todays world.

It is amazing that the conflict over there does not get more airtime than it does though because from what I have read it is really similar to Vietnam.

I could see it compared to Vietnam, except that we don't really know what the public perception in Russia is about it. But after today, the Russian army might have caught a PR break as sympathy is sure to drop for the Chechens

[Agamemnon]

Yeah, agreed, we may not find common ground on what exactly constitutes history. For me, World War II profoundly shaped the current geopolitical makeup of the world, and its effects are still in many ways in their infancy. Thus, to me, WWII was a very current event that is continuing to have overt influence over many political/social/economic institutions. IMF, World Bank, and other powerful organizations (UN) were set up as a result of World War II.

I have a problem with people blaming the UN for anything. The UN is a bureaucratic organization that carries out the will of its MEMBERS. If its members, which are the nation-states of the world, decide to do something, the UN does it. If states decide not to do something, the UN doesn't do it. Thus, it is not the UN that _makes_ any decisions, but simply follows the decisions made by its members. So if there's fault to be ascribed to the international community for assisting the creation of the Pal/Israeli conflict, it should rest squarely on nation-states shoulders, not the UN.

Also, you're basically right in that Jews have about as much historical right to Israel as natives to North America. Thus, the precedent of re-conquest of historical lands has been legitimized in Israel. Therefore, natives could/should feel justified basically 'taking' what they feel is theirs, by historical right. However, since they don't have the 'might', they aren't 'right'.

In my opinion, if the ethnic makeup of Israel/Palestine has been overwhelmingly Arab for the last 2000 years, they probably have the right to be called the 'indigenous' people there, and have recently, over the last century, basically been kicked out.

The Israelis didn't just kick Palestinians out, they actively collaborated with wealthy Arab landowners who owned Palestine, but didn't live there, and didn't mind selling their people down the river to Jews because the price was right. In that sense, it is the Palestinians 'own fault' they sold their land. In reality, about 0.1% of the population owned the whole wack and lived in Damascus. They had no reason not to sell the land. Its the 'indigenous' Palestinians who have to pay for being sold out by their leadership, and we, as good capitalist westerners, have decided to follow the 'rule of law' here and respect traditional property rights (ie rich people own the property). Thus, if the land was bought fair and square, screw the millions that lived there before, that land isn't their's anymore. Somewhat sickening.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 1 2004, 08:50 PM
It is really hard for me to so poor Russians because the way their army has acted over in that part of the world is abhorent, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of taking civilians as hostages, something which is all to common in todays world.

It is amazing that the conflict over there does not get more airtime than it does though because from what I have read it is really similar to Vietnam.

I've heard it compared to Vietnam several times. The Russian military is nowhere near as prepared or experienced as the Americans with counter-insurgency tactics. At the height of Soviet military power, they were unable to subdue Afghanistan. Chechnya is basically the same terrain, people, etc. as Afghanistan, and the Russians are using the same equipment/tactics they did in the 1970's.

Hit and run, guerilla raids, suicide bombs (happened in Vietnam too), basically a paramilitary insurgency.

There's an amazing CNN documentary on Chechen fighters where they followed them around for a bit. Pretty dicey life to live.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 1 2004, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 1 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 1 2004, 08:50 PM
It is really hard for me to so poor Russians because the way their army has acted over in that part of the world is abhorent, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of taking civilians as hostages, something which is all to common in todays world.

It is amazing that the conflict over there does not get more airtime than it does though because from what I have read it is really similar to Vietnam.

I could see it compared to Vietnam, except that we don't really know what the public perception in Russia is about it. But after today, the Russian army might have caught a PR break as sympathy is sure to drop for the Chechens [/b][/quote]
The surprising thing is, Russians on average are really pessimistic about the war in Chechnya, and really just want it to go away. However, Putin is firmly behind crushing the insurgency, and he's been personally involved since before he was President. What's strange is, despite malcontent over the counter-insurgency, Russians wildly support Putin no matter what he does. The man is bigger than the issue in this case, and Russians will support whatever he decides to do w/ the conflict, and his history indicates that he won't stop fighting any time soon.

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 1 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 1 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 1 2004, 08:50 PM
It is really hard for me to so poor Russians because the way their army has acted over in that part of the world is abhorent, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of taking civilians as hostages, something which is all to common in todays world.

It is amazing that the conflict over there does not get more airtime than it does though because from what I have read it is really similar to Vietnam.

I could see it compared to Vietnam, except that we don't really know what the public perception in Russia is about it. But after today, the Russian army might have caught a PR break as sympathy is sure to drop for the Chechens [/b][/quote]
Sympathy is worth f@#$ all.
http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny.htm
That shows you what sympathy gets you.

[CaptainCrunch]

The biggest difference between Vietnam and Chechnia is that the Soviet Army (especially after today) will probably win the media war back home.

In Vietnam the war was won by the home side which caused a great deal of discontentment in the States.

As much as Putin would like this whole thing to go away, look for him to publically make some fairly harsh statements about his battles to put down the rebellion there.

Chances are no matter what his political standings this will be a popular sentiment in Russia, especially after the events of the last couple of days.

Its hard to have sympathy for somebody who willingly kidnaps and murders innocent children, and attacks movie theatres.

[Lurch]

It might not mean a hill of beans to you, but its a leap over a large chasm for me.

I didn't mean to imply intent means nothing to me personally as an outsider - rather, if I was an Iraqi and the US bombed my house, I'd feel more than justified exacting revenge in exactly the same way I'd feel justified in getting revenge if my child had been in New York three years ago. I doubt the Iraqi victim ascribes the same noble purpose to the US that you do and therefore likely feels very similar towards US soldiers as you feel towards mujahadeen fighters.

If they were going after government heads, or military units I would have very little problems with it, however they are going after children, and I have a big problem with that.

I call BS on this one, unless you are willing to tell me you have no problem with the Iraqi 'terrorists' who are currently bombing US soldiers, attacking government heads (we'll probably agree that kidnapping children, journalists and aid workers is pretty sick and wrong, though in fairness to the kidnappers its quite likely hard to tell who is a reporter/aid worker and who is special ops for the US).

As for collateral damage being acceptable but unfortunate, I take a different tack on the morality of it. I see collateral damage arising from a firefight, direct engagement, etc. as sad but accidental. I see collateral damage from bombs, unmanned drones, cruise missiles, etc. as a policy that trades innocent victims lives (citizens of the invaded country) for saving lives of the invading, professional force. I don't see how this can be morally justified in that a specific policy enacted to save US soldiers' lives can be shown to be directly responsible for many deaths of Iraqi innocent civilians. In effect, you devalue human life, as long as its from another country - not all that dissimilar to terrorism in my mind.

As to blaming the UN for the problems with Israel and the Arab states, this is very misleading. Yes, the UN has screwed up, but in many of the cases that I am aware of it was due to a veto from the US as a permanent member of the security council that caused the poor policy.

Finally, before I come off sounding anti-American, I want to make it clear that I think the US does a lot of good things in the world - Iraq is just not one of them. The undeniable facts are they have killed more innocent civilians than died on Sept/11, alienated many countries, enraged Muslims, and spent perhaps $100 billion. Just for arguments sake, if you took $100 billion and spent it on upgrading port security, airport security, homeland security, intelligence, etc. do you suppose America would be safer than if you took $100 billion and turned Iraq into a gong show for several years? IMO, Iraq has made America (and me in Canada by extension) less safe, not more and as such GW has done an abysmal job fighting terrorism.

[CaptainCrunch]

The difference to me with the Chechin's as oppossed to the Iraqi's is that they've been fighting a military action against the Russian invaders, and have at some points fought a very conventional war.

A logical place to go after is the leadership

In Iraq they're making it a point to go after civilians and executing them, in my small minded way it makes a bit of a difference.

I am not in favor of intentionally going after innocents to get your point across, and thats what these latest Chechin's have done, and thats what the insurgants in Iraq have done,

But i could be out to lunch on trying to explain this

It sounds right in my head

[Looger]

i love it when people talk of negotiating, of choices the chechen rebels make, of compromise and diplomacy.

no, keep going, it's great.

when you wake up in a pile of rubble to discover your family's been nonchalantly murdered by a russian government that has made its intentions quite clear, then you get back to me on how you should properly deal with your feelings.

terrorists aren't a world-wide force out to 'get back' at the west for being successful. take a good look at individual situations, there are reasons for all this crap. don't just look at the latest escalation as the only event.

why is the avenger always blamed? if russian soldiers didn't kill chechen civilians, then chechen rebels wouldn't kill russian civilians. this is a simple message that many people have to think about.

i say, too bad russia. don't cry to us now though. you could have stopped all of this before it started.

if you do the kinds of things russia has done, the only guaranteed response is what we're seeing now.

put it in the bank.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

They took kids hostage that makes you a complete a-hole and waste of skin no matter which way you cut it. I don't care what your bloody beef is with the Russian Government you don't take it out on the civilians of a nation, if you do you are not better than any scum murderer and you are a coward. Sure Russia more than likely brought it on themselves but that isn't what is important right now, what is important is the wellbeing of the 200+ children who are being held hostage.

[Looger]

attack the personal perpetrators of this crime all you want.

but until you take care of the problem (violent imperialism and massacre) the symptoms (hostage-taking, bombs, terror)


WILL HAPPEN

[TheCommodoreAfro]

There are two sides to the issue, blah blah blah. Freaking scumbags - every last one of them. I hope like hell it ends peacefully, but I have nasty premontions of the theatre debacle from a while back. Heinous, heinous, heinous.

[Looger]

http://www.mapreport.com/countries/chechnya.html

you add up every russian civilian death here in this count, it still pales in comparison to the events that led chechan rebels to retaliate.

but it wasn't on the news. oops, that's right.

nevermind!

[Lurch]

you don't take it out on the civilians of a nation, if you do you are not better than any scum murderer and you are a coward.

Here's where I agree with probably everyone on this board. Where we disagree is that I extend that to civilians that are the minority and not on the side of the organized military. I don't see the difference between kidnapping children and threatening to blow up their school versus firing rockets from a helicopter gunship into a crowd and killing innocent children. If you fire weapons indiscriminately into a crowd and/or residential area, you have to know that you are killing innocents. Just b/c you choose to do it wearing a uniform and flying an airplane/helicopter/tank,etc. does not make it any less criminal, IMO.

The other opinion I object to is the idea that I (or anyone who has a similar view) is somehow apologizing for terrorists or excusing what they do when I suggest the definition of terrorism is skewed towards making organized military appear innocent. At least in my case, this could not be less true - I just don't excuse the other side either and hold them in equal contempt.