Putin blasts USA on terror stance

[Cowperson]

Interesting comments from Vlad Putin today, saying USA representatives shouldn't be talking to the Chechen separatist movement, whom Putins described as terrorists.

These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?" he asked.

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" the Russian president was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Tuesday.

"You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bas**rds, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?"

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...n.us/index.html

As a sidenote, Putin's conversation also included this quote:

In one dramatic moment, Putin said Russian security forces overheard a disturbing walkie-talkie conversation between the terrorists:

"What are you doing? Why? I hear some noise. What's going on? I'm just in the middle of shooting some children."

"They were bored," Putin said. "So they shot children."

Cowperson

[Table 5]

IMO, there is little that seperates the Chechens and the middle eastern terrorists after last week's events. They both are in the business of killing innocent civilians. This circumstance showcases the problem many people have with the U.S.....hypocricy and selective judgement.

[FlamesAddiction]

Putin is being pretty hypocritical if he thinks that Russia has a good history of successfully dealing with terrorists and having a foreign policy that does not invite terrorism.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 7 2004, 07:46 PM
Putin is being pretty hypocritical if he thinks that Russia has a good history of successfully dealing with terrorists and having a foreign policy that does not invite terrorism.

He's not saying this at all. If fact in his first speech after the bombing he stated that Russia is a soft target for these terrorist thugs because they've become weak.

What he's talking about is the support the U.S. has thrown the Chechnyan's way over the last three years.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 7 2004, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 7 2004, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Sep 7 2004, 07:46 PM
Putin is being pretty hypocritical if he thinks that Russia has a good history of successfully dealing with terrorists and having a foreign policy that does not invite terrorism.

He's not saying this at all. If fact in his first speech after the bombing he stated that Russia is a soft target for these terrorist thugs because they've become weak.

What he's talking about is the support the U.S. has thrown the Chechnyan's way over the last three years. [/b][/quote]
I guess I'm unfamiliar with the support the U.S. has given Chechnyans.

Seems odd since Chechnyan rebels are believed to be funded and supported by the al Qaeda network.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 7 2004, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 7 2004, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

He's not saying this at all. If fact in his first speech after the bombing he stated that Russia is a soft target for these terrorist thugs because they've become weak.

What he's talking about is the support the U.S. has thrown the Chechnyan's way over the last three years.

I guess I'm unfamiliar with the support the U.S. has given Chechnyans.

Seems odd since Chechnyan rebels are believed to be funded and supported by the al Qaeda network. [/b][/quote]
You've hit the central point.

Putin is upset the USA is talking with them. By talking with them, he is presuming that is some level of support.

But he didn't say they were giving them Stinger missiles like the USA did for "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Is he arguing about "moral support?"

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think there's monetary aid going in there. But there is moral support, and the U.S. was pushing for the use of peacekeepers to separate the Russian's from the rebels.

To a nation thats grieving the U.S. stance might look a little hypocritical.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 03:07 PM
Putin is upset the USA is talking with them. By talking with them, he is presuming that is some level of support.

perhaps not support, but by sitting down with them, it aknowledges a certain amount of respect. would the US ever sit down to talk over differences with Osama and his clan? How would they feel if the Russians did?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

How p*ssed would Americans be if Putin was talking with bin Laden? Damn p*ssed. Russia would immediately be on the list of enemies. I think Putin is right in his stance. These guys are terrorists and should be alienated by all governments. They're criminals and have no voice at the negotiation table so no government has any right talking to them. It would be like the British government talking with Clifford Olsen. It makes no sense.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 7 2004, 08:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 7 2004, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I guess I'm unfamiliar with the support the U.S. has given Chechnyans.

Seems odd since Chechnyan rebels are believed to be funded and supported by the al Qaeda network.

You've hit the central point.

Putin is upset the USA is talking with them. By talking with them, he is presuming that is some level of support.

But he didn't say they were giving them Stinger missiles like the USA did for "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Is he arguing about "moral support?"

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I was wondering when this would come out. The U.S. was decrying Russia's actions against the Chechens for years, and they are still technically part of the country. Yet the American's believe it's ok to unilaterally attack a sovereign naiton halfway across the world for their own safety. The whole thing smacks of hypocracy.

I don't know if the support was anything beyond moral, but I know that by decrying it the way the American's did through the world government channels, it made thigs a lot harder for the Russians.

It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there.

Not that I agree with it totally but expect it to get even worse if Bush wins again.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM
It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there.

Not that I agree with it totally but expect it to get even worse if Bush wins again.

Dude! When Dis and Tranny read this... Duck and cover! In-coming!!!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You've hit the central point.

Putin is upset the USA is talking with them. By talking with them, he is presuming that is some level of support.

But he didn't say they were giving them Stinger missiles like the USA did for "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Is he arguing about "moral support?"

Cowperson

I was wondering when this would come out. The U.S. was decrying Russia's actions against the Chechens for years, and they are still technically part of the country. Yet the American's believe it's ok to unilaterally attack a sovereign naiton halfway across the world for their own safety. The whole thing smacks of hypocracy.

I don't know if the support was anything beyond moral, but I know that by decrying it the way the American's did through the world government channels, it made thigs a lot harder for the Russians.

It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there.

Not that I agree with it totally but expect it to get even worse if Bush wins again. [/b][/quote]
I think your comparing Apples to Oranges here. If your going after the hypocrisy argument, you could argue the point that the American's while providing moral support to the Kurds didn't step in and militarily support them when Hussein decided to attempt to wipe them out.

The fact remains that the American invasion into Iraq is a whole other fish then the question of the Russian's squashing Chechnya. Whether you believe in some kind of evil facist government theory or whether you sbscribe that the American were after Oil or whatever the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

I don't know if the support was anything beyond moral, but I know that by decrying it the way the American's did through the world government channels, it made thigs a lot harder for the Russians.

Actually thats not true, the Russians made it a lot harder for themselves. This is the second time that the Russians have gotten themselves buried in a Vietnam type scenario, and both times they've tried to use the same methods which is to use brute force to make the rebels bend to thier will.

It dosen't work. the American offering of moral support and the request for the use of peacekeepers was the right thing to do. In essence they were offering the Russians an easy way out, and the Russians failed to take it.

Until the investigation is released and the identities of these butchers is verified the whole terrorist issue has become a lot more nebulous. But if in fact Al Queda was involved on this, the American's are going to end up not only fighting Al Queda, but they'll end up fighting an enraged and vengenceful Russia as well.

It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there

I must be dense because I don't see any similarities between the U.S. possibly offering moral support in Chechnya and the American's invasion of Iraq.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM
I was wondering when this would come out. The U.S. was decrying Russia's actions against the Chechens for years, and they are still technically part of the country. Yet the American's believe it's ok to unilaterally attack a sovereign naiton halfway across the world for their own safety. The whole thing smacks of hypocracy.

I haven't really been keeping up with this US/Chechnya thing, so I need to ask; Is the U.S. denouncing Russia's right to fight rebels in Chechnya, or are they denouncing the specific tactics?

It is a world of difference. For example; I supported the US's right to invade Afghanistan, but I disagreed with some of the the tactics, like how people were detained in Guantanomo for so long without due process.

From what I have heard, Russia has violated human rights and many conventions of war in Chechnya. I'm not talking about rogue military personel either, but government sponsored terror. In the end, it will do nothing but create more terrorism. Hell, even conventional war will likely not end terrorism, but at least it gains you allies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 7 2004, 10:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 7 2004, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM
I was wondering when this would come out. The U.S. was decrying Russia's actions against the Chechens for years, and they are still technically part of the country. Yet the American's believe it's ok to unilaterally attack a sovereign naiton halfway across the world for their own safety. The whole thing smacks of hypocracy.

I haven't really been keeping up with this US/Chechnya thing, so I need to ask; Is the U.S. denouncing Russia's right to fight rebels in Chechnya, or are they denouncing the specific tactics?

It is a world of difference. For example; I supported the US's right to invade Afghanistan, but I disagreed with some of the the tactics, like how people were detained in Guantanomo for so long without due process.

From what I have heard, Russia has violated human rights and many conventions of war in Chechnya. I'm not talking about rogue military personel either, but government sponsored terror. In the end, it will do nothing but create more terrorism. Hell, even conventional war likelt not end terrorism, but at least it gains you allies. [/b][/quote]
America was concerned about the Russian methods of using artillary on city blocks, and leveling blocks of housing.

the Russian method harkens back to thier house to house fighting in the second world war and they've never changed.

The American's are not as much concerned about an internal rebellion as the destabilizing element that its causing.

Rumor has it that 3 tank divisions left the Moscow area today. Look for a large buildup by the Russians as they attempt to brute force a end to the confilict.

[Daradon]

Capt:

I'm not saying anything different than what you wrote yourself.

'the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

So I think it IS far comparison. Chechnya is NOT a threat to Russia? They've been fighting them for years, and as the theatre massacre in Moscow and the recent school massacre in Beslan SHOW that the Chechen's are a threat. In a much more identifiable and direct threat than the U.S. had with Iraq.

I don't see where you think it's a much different comparison.

EDIT: typos

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 7 2004, 10:21 PM
America was concerned about the Russian methods of using artillary on city blocks, and leveling blocks of housing.

And that would be a definite no-no. They have to denounce that if they want the respect and needed allies for the war on terror in Central Asia.

But will they denounce it the next time Ariel Sharon does the same thing in the West Bank and Gaza? I hope so.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Capt:

I'm not saying anything different than what you wrote yourself.

'the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

So I think it IS far comparison. Chechnya is NOT a threat to Russia? They've been fighting them for years, and as the theatre massacre in Moscow and the recent school massacre in Beslan SHOW that the Chechen's are a threat. In a much more identifiable and direct threat than the U.S. had with Iraq.

I don't see where you think it's a much different comparison.

EDIT: typos

Here's where I see a diffence

Chechnya is considered a internal Russian matter, just like if the state of texas for example went rebel, the American's would have a right to go in militarily deal with it. I don't even know what the extent of UN involvement is if any. Where the American's got involved was on a morality based diplomatic level. They didn't recognize Chechnya's independance but they did recognize Russia's deplorable track record in there

At the end of the first Gulf war the UN mandated protection of the Kurds in Northern Iraq, hence the no fly zone. which gave some legitamacy to Kurdish claims to that region. Where the UN and the U.S. failed is that they didn't prevent Hussien from going in there for wholesale slaughter

Iraq was deemned a threat to the U.S. and thier allies in that region, and the U.S. put its own interests ahead of the U.N. or other global interests and decided to neutralize that threat. According to the UN thats a violation of international law. According to the U.S. the protection of thier own and thier allies superceded that interest.

So in my mind there is a big difference between the two situations.

Hey I could be looking at it backwards. but it is just that looking at it

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 7 2004, 10:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 7 2004, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 7 2004, 10:21 PM
America was concerned about the Russian methods of using artillary on city blocks, and leveling blocks of housing.

And that would be a definite no-no. They have to denounce that if they want the respect and needed allies for the war on terror in Central Asia.

But will they denounce it the next time Ariel Sharon does the same thing in the West Bank and Gaza? I hope so. [/b][/quote]
The American's have already raised concerns about Israel's methods in dealing with the Palestine threat there. Thats why they went out of thier way to create the road map for peace in that region. something that will probably never work since it would basically allow the crazies to run wild in Isreal with semtex vests.

The American's prefer to deal with Israel as allies and not as the UN deals with it

[Daradon]

Now I'm the one who is confused but how is using artillary on city blocks that much different then flying over them and dropping bombs. Bombs with smaller bombs in them that in fact don't completely explode when they hit the ground so children can find them later.

Besides, it's been proven just how 'smart' the smart bombs are.

And I don't think the U.S. was wagging their finger solely at the Russians tactics anyway.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Capt:

I'm not saying anything different than what you wrote yourself.

'the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

So I think it IS far comparison. Chechnya is NOT a threat to Russia? They've been fighting them for years, and as the theatre massacre in Moscow and the recent school massacre in Beslan SHOW that the Chechen's are a threat. In a much more identifiable and direct threat than the U.S. had with Iraq.

I don't see where you think it's a much different comparison.

EDIT: typos

Agree with Daradon here.

The Russians perceive Chechnya as a threat.

Infact if Putin is smart he can spin this exactly like the US spun 9/11 to meet its agenda.