Islam is a Religion of Peace (TM)! [somewhat graphic]

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-08-31 06:16pm

MKSheppard wrote:BTW that Israeli city where the two mohammedians went BOOM is also the only city which is not separated from the territries by the fence.

So... their trying to increase support for the Great Wall of Israel?

I thought they were against it...

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-08-31 06:22pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:There are Christians in the far right who bomb research clinics and abortion clinics and think it's the will of God. Just like every conservitive isnt responsible for what a far right psycho who bombs an abortion clinic does, every muslim isnt responsible for what a few nutjobs do.

People who are nuts will do what they will reguardless of what religion they are. It's called beinga psychpath, it has nothing to do with Islam in particular or religion in general, more than it has to do with various fucked up brain systems.

I think it has a lot to do with their culture as well. The Religion, though often interpreted in a peaceful enough way, may be more a convenient excuse or a buttress for the bloodier aspects of their culture than a cause, but this is definitely not the work of individual psychopaths. These are not random Columbine like outbursts--these people have planning and support and a very large base of acceptance in certain countries.

It certainly isn't a society of peace over there.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-31 06:28pm

Palestinian boys celebrate the twin suicide bombing that killed 16 Israeli's in Beersheba, during a Hamas rally in Gaza City, August 31,2004. The Islamist militant group claimed responsibility for the new attacks as vengeance for Israel's assassination of Hamas's two top leaders in helicopter missile strikes. REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah

Palestinian Hamas supporters celebrate the twin suicide bombing that killed 16 Israeli's in Beersheba, during a Hamas rally in Gaza City, August 31,2004. The Islamist militant group claimed responsibility for the new attacks as vengeance for Israel's assassination of Hamas' two top leaders in helicopter missile strikes. REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah

A Palestinian boy holds a toy gun and Muslim holly book Koran as Hamas supporters celebrate the twin suicide bombing that killed 16 Israeli in Beersheba, in Gaza city August 31, 2004. The Islamist militant group claimed responsibility for the new attacks as vengeance for Israel's assassination of Hamas's two top leaders in helicopter missile strikes. REUTERS/Suhaib Salem

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-31 06:38pm

As for the "if we give them money, they'll reform!" argument goes.......

http://eufunding.org/FPC2004Report.pdf

LONDON, UK -- Since 1993, the European Union has contributed over €2 billion directly and indirectly to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Member states have donated a further €2 billion in the same period. The Funding for Peace Coalition has released a new report detailing the diversion of unprecedented sums of financial aid from the Palestinian people towards corruption and violence.

The report, entitled “Managing European Taxpayers’ Money: Supporting The Palestinian Arabs – A Study In Transparency”, exposes evidence showing a compelling connection between European funding and ongoing Palestinian corruption and terrorism. It highlights the utter failure of European organisations to monitor where these funds have been directed. The report details theft, nepotism, and embezzlement on the part of the PA, supported by incompetence and apathy on the part of European agencies.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-31 06:40pm

OH FUCKING SHIT!

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/st ... ory=556765

Moscow fears two suicide bombers at large
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow

31 August 2004

Fears were growing yesterday that two "black widows" - female Chechen suicide bombers - were on the loose in Moscow, less than a week after two passenger airliners were blown out of the sky.

The two prime suspects in last week's explosions have been identified as the Chechens Amant Nagaeva and Satsita Dzhebirkhanova. Both had lost brothers in Chechnya's hostilities with Russia. Remains of the women's bodies were found in the wreckage of both planes, along with traces of a high explosive favoured by Chechen separatists. Eighty-nine people died in the almost simultaneous explosions.

The daily Izvestia reported yesterday that the two women did not travel to Moscow alone. The newspaper said that they had come with two other Chechen women with whom they had been living in Grozny, Chechnya's capital, Maryam Taburova and Roza Nagaeva (Amant's sister).

All four women were last seen taking a bus from Dagestan to an unknown destination on 22 August, two days before the planes were blown up. All were either divorced or single, and worked as market traders in Grozny's central market, selling children's clothes, which they obtained on monthly shuttle trips to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan.

A photograph of Ms Taburova was published on Izvestia's front page yesterday under the chilling headline: "Another two suicide bombers."

The paper interviewed the two dead women's relatives in Chechnya, who suggested that they had been murdered and their passports used by real suicide bombers. Izvestia agreed that there were only two possibilities; that the four were genuine suicide bombers controlled by terrorists in Baku, or that their identities had been stolen by Baku-based terrorists who had murdered them.

The truth might emerge, it added, when the gruesome remains of Amant and Satsita are identified by their relatives. The populist newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda published a grim photograph of Amant's headless, skinless corpse yesterday, which was barely recognisable as a human being. It claimed investigators had found a note in Arabic among her personal effects reading "Allah Akbar!" or "Allah is Great", the traditional rallying cry of Chechen separatist fighters.

Investigators have said they may need as much as a month and a half to piece together a full picture of exactly how and why the two planes were targeted.

There was confusion yesterday over the treatment that Russian airliners will receive in American airspace. The Washington Post has reported that they will be escorted by fighter jets primed to shoot them down if they are hijacked, but the Russian foreign ministry said yesterday that it had received no such official notification.

In Chechnya, meanwhile, the Kremlin's handpicked candidate was confirmed to have won the republic's presidential elections by a landslide. Alu Alkhanov, 47, a former policeman, was shown to have captured almost 74 per cent of the vote. His election was controversial, however. Mr Alkhanov's main challenger was barred from running on a technicality, Mr Alkhanovhad the media and the Kremlin on his side and at least two of his rivals complained of electoral irregularities.

The British Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said: "We have serious concerns about the way these elections have been conducted ... another opportunity has been missed to build up the political process. Nevertheless, we hope Mr Alkhanov and the Russian authorities will now try to advance reconciliation in Chechnya."

********************

Ones self detonated.......that leaves another left roaming Moscow......

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-31 06:56pm

Death toll in moscow up to 10 dead, and 51 wounded

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-01 01:35am

MKSheppard wrote:On the other hand, in Mother Russia, the majority of Chechen rebel groups have a tactit understanding with the Russians that they will only attack military targets, and not civilian targets. I wonder why...

That would be lack of suitable concentrations of Russian civilians within Chechnya, where those groups operate. Also, the impact in the eyes of the local populace is better if they kill Russian soldiers, whom everyone there hates with a passion.

MKSheppard wrote:There's a lot we could learn from the Russians in terms of dealing with Islamic terrorism. Especially the solution to kidnappings.

Yes, US troops should obviously start conducting random terrorism against civilian populations, dragging all the men off in the night and dumping their mutilated corpses near their homes a few days later or just "disappearing" them and telling their families to go fuck off.

You know what, Shep? Fuck off!

Edi

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2004-09-01 02:33am

You know, images like the ones Shep posted eliminate any feelings of forgiveness that I might have toward the rest of the Muslim population in the ME. They really are just a bunch of savages, with nothing but blood and vengeance on their minds. People like this are like a tumour on all humans. We should really just start bombing their population centres out of existence, and then see what they think of the idea of bombing cities. Or maybe we should just allocate them to concentration camps and reeducate them all.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-01 03:10am

Edi wrote:You know what, Shep? Fuck off!

It's not my fault you refuse to see that the solution to kidnappings of nationals is to kidnap the kidnappers sons and being mailing the kidnapper
their son's balls one by one, and then other bodily parts until your nationals are released.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-01 06:31am

MKSheppard wrote:
Edi wrote:You know what, Shep? Fuck off!
It's not my fault you refuse to see that the solution to kidnappings of nationals is to kidnap the kidnappers sons and being mailing the kidnapper
their son's balls one by one, and then other bodily parts until your nationals are released.

In case you've been living under a rock since 1999 when the current brouhaha in Chechnya started, that's exactly what the Russians have been doing, and the result has been more Chechen terrorism across the board, not less. The only real solution that would have any kind of hope of solving the problem is for Russia to just get the fuck out of Chechnya and leave them to their own devices. Then the rebels would either have to start rebuilding in earnest or they would alienate their own people (the rebel groups don't have such a good rep even among Chechens, not all of them anyway, but even the worst ones are better liked than the Russian soldiers).

The problem is that Russia will never follow that course, because their government is too proud and pig-headed to ever concede making a mistake and it will be seen as giving into terrorism, even if the reality is not quite that straightforward.

Edi

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2004-09-01 06:45am

Japan of the 30's and 40's is what the ME would like to grow up to be. Anyone who thinks that that Isreal would still be there if the US was standing behind them is a fool.

If these nations had the ability to strike the west in a conventional military fasion without having their asses handed to them the would in an instant. They resort to the next best thing, they finance the individual giving the nation a get out of jail free card.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-09-01 12:09pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: You'll notice the difference is that such actions are condemmed by the rest of the Christian community, while the vast majority of muslims are not in protest of the indiscriminate violence.

Spice Runner wrote:What about Muslims around the world who have not been affected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do they tolerate this crap? Why do they not stand up to imams and mullahs and radical preachers and say enough.

1. Who says that such actions aren't condemned, by the vast majority of Muslims?

Here is something from what General Musharraf said: 'We have to save ourselves from extremists. Narrow-minded extremists are carrying out bomb blasts, targeted killings. In the name of what? In the name of Islam... Whosoever is doing this... They are the enemies of Islam. And you should take them as the enemies of Islam. Those who teach you extremism, who tell you that if you go and kill such and such person you will go to paradise, you should stop him.'

Now, let's take the grand sheikh of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, Dr Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. A month earlier at the Conference of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs in Cairo, attended by delegations from 71 countries, he condemned extremists who 'savagely murder innocent people and then claim, when they are arrested, they did this to please God'.

This was taken from a news article, that's over a year old. Unfortunately, it has been archived.

Dr Mathahir, retired from the PM of Malaysia has condemned terrorism. His successor, has condemned it. We have grand sheikhs, Muslim scholars and other religious figures from Europe, Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE and Kuwait who condemned it

A poll taken on the streets, reveal that 70% of muslims interviewed in SEA, India, Pakistan, EU and America condemned the terrorist tactics of taking hostages, even while professing support for the Iraqi insurgency and that America was waging a war against Muslims.

My question should be this. Why isn't the US media reporting any of this? Reuters seldom pick up any of this, and so does AP. BBC,Reuters at least may have some commentary on comments made by Muslim scholars in the EU, MidEast and Pakistan, but Fox-news and CNN?

Super-Gagme wrote:If Islam is peaceful and lunatics like that don't represent you, then why don't we see the same in other religions? Clearly it has something to do with Islam being the way it is.

Timothy McVeigh. A member of a christian, White Supremacist group.

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2004-09-01 12:50pm

It is good to know, that many people condemn the extremists. You bring up a valid point. Why is it that I've never hear about any of this from the media.

PainRack wrote: A poll taken on the streets, reveal that 70% of muslims interviewed in SEA, India, Pakistan, EU and America condemned the terrorist tactics of taking hostages, even while professing support for the Iraqi insurgency and that America was waging a war against Muslims

In bold, that is what I'm against. The whole groupthink of islam. The U.S. is waging war against insurgants in Iraq. Many Iraqis have killed or injured. But why must this be construed as a war against Muslims?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-09-01 01:05pm

Spice Runner wrote:It is good to know, that many people condemn the extremists. You bring up a valid point. Why is it that I've never hear about any of this from the media.

PainRack wrote: A poll taken on the streets, reveal that 70% of muslims interviewed in SEA, India, Pakistan, EU and America condemned the terrorist tactics of taking hostages, even while professing support for the Iraqi insurgency and that America was waging a war against Muslims
In bold, that is what I'm against. The whole groupthink of islam. The U.S. is waging war against insurgants in Iraq. Many Iraqis have killed or injured. But why must this be construed as a war against Muslims?

Because it has maximum inflammatory effect.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-01 01:21pm

Spice Runner wrote:It is good to know, that many people condemn the extremists. You bring up a valid point. Why is it that I've never hear about any of this from the media.
PainRack wrote: A poll taken on the streets, reveal that 70% of muslims interviewed in SEA, India, Pakistan, EU and America condemned the terrorist tactics of taking hostages, even while professing support for the Iraqi insurgency and that America was waging a war against Muslims
In bold, that is what I'm against. The whole groupthink of islam. The U.S. is waging war against insurgants in Iraq. Many Iraqis have killed or injured. But why must this be construed as a war against Muslims?

Because it is. The American administration's long-term goal is to wipe out Muslim fundamentalism, because they see it as intrinsically expansionist, destabilizing, and dangerous.

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2004-09-01 01:30pm

No, no I mean the muslims around the world don't seem to understand this. They seem to see it as a war against all muslims and the muslim faith.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-09-01 01:33pm

I've a degree in social science with a minor in History with a special interest in the Middle East, and so I thought I could share some of my knowledge about this subject. I'm no Muslim, in theory I'm a Lutherist but I'm really an atheist (well, perhaps an agnostic, but I don't believe in the biblical God).

Well, the Western civilization has the Muslim world to thank for its existence (although it later came close of destroying it during the 10th century) since it preserved and translated antique Greek documents that surely would've been destroyed during the Middle Ages when the Antique thinking fell out of favor in Europe, but later was reintroduced to Europe through islamic influences in Spain during the 10th to 12th centuries.

There is an article over at objectivethought.com that deals with Islam. Although the title of the article is provoking, it's interesting. I don't agree with some of statements made in the article, particulary when it comes to
the author's interpretation of infidels, so I thought I could add a bit on this.

According to the Quaran, Jews and Christians are protected peoples (this also applied to Hindus during Islam's expansion into India), dhimmi, which means people of the book (the Old Testament and the Bible). The Dhimmis were subject to many restrictions, they weren't allowed to build new churces, ring the bell at church, they weren't allowed to own weapons, they weren't allowed to bear crosses or any other visible religious symbols (compare this with the current situation in France, where Muslims claim they're being denied their rights), they weren't allowed to testify in courts and all dhimmis, regardless of age or sex, had to pay a tax, Jizya. In order to cultivate land, they had to pay an other tax, Kharay. Although this may sound oppressive, the situation for Jews and Christians was far, far better than the situation for Muslims in Europe.

The article can be found using the link below:
+http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/islam.html

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-01 01:50pm

Spice Runner wrote:No, no I mean the muslims around the world don't seem to understand this. They seem to see it as a war against all muslims and the muslim faith.

And how is that different from the way moderate Christians view attempts to change the Pledge of Allegiance as a war on Christianity? See how little it takes to convince a religious person that someone's declared war on his faith? When actual bombs are falling, even if it's on a more extreme version of their faith, do you know what they're thinking? "We're next."

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-01 09:07pm

For the love of.... the ignorance on this thread is unbelievable.

It is a distinct minority of Muslims that believe in terrorist ideologies. And most of that is in the Middle East. ONLY 20% OF MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE LIVE IN THE ME. The other 80% are elsewhere, and they aren't huge fans of extremism. Even the Muslims in the Middle East aren't big fans. Many speak out against it. Only US media is more interested in covering inflamatory rhetoric that promotes easy-to-understand us-and-them concepts. If you look at sources outside Fox News, you can find plenty of examples of Muslims speaking up in condemnation of these acts.

And you point to the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine? Two things: 1) The Israelis do just as much terrorist shit as the Palestinians do. Can't blame one over the other. 2) ISRAEL/PAKISTAN IS A POLITICAL CONFLICT. That's right. Political. It's about displacement of people by immigrants following WWII. NOT about Jew v Muslim. Sure, there is some religious rhetoric. But that's like saying "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" was the cause of the American Revolution rather than taxation.

I can't believe this. Some of you guys see a few news reports of radicals and their followers celebrating terrorism, and you make an assumption about the attitudes of 1.2 BILLION PEOPLE. Get a clue, take a course on the theology on Islam (I HAVE!), then try to make this case.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-09-01 11:07pm

Edi wrote:The problem is that Russia will never follow that course, because their government is too proud and pig-headed to ever concede making a mistake and it will be seen as giving into terrorism, even if the reality is not quite that straightforward.

Let me ask you Ed, if all of a sudden in the Center of the United States, a little state rebels, what would the US do? They might not be quite as destructive, but they are still going to suppress it, I'd think. Then if those guys, even after being occupied, sneak out and do terrorist raids, do you think the US is going to just suddenly let them go?

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-02 05:27am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Edi wrote:The problem is that Russia will never follow that course, because their government is too proud and pig-headed to ever concede making a mistake and it will be seen as giving into terrorism, even if the reality is not quite that straightforward.
Let me ask you Ed, if all of a sudden in the Center of the United States, a little state rebels, what would the US do? They might not be quite as destructive, but they are still going to suppress it, I'd think. Then if those guys, even after being occupied, sneak out and do terrorist raids, do you think the US is going to just suddenly let them go?

Take a look at the map: Chechnya is nowhere near the center of Russia. Furthermore, Chechnyans are a separate people forcibly conquered (and only in 1871) who never accepted that fate and submitted. Furthermore, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, Moscow let them become defacto independent at the same time as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became independent and the states of Kazakhstan, Kirgistan, Uzbekistan and others were formed. Russia only tried to take Chechnya back in 1994, again by force, and got its ass handed to it. They withdrew in 1996. In 1999, they invaded again and proceeded to reduce the whole country to a pile of rubble (the parts that they hadn't destroyed in the previous war) as well as commit continual atrocities against the people there.

The reason Russia didn't let Chechnya go like the Baltic states were let go? There is, or rather, was, a major oil pipeline from the Caspian that ran through Chechnya and they didn't want to give that up. There was a window for negotiating a settlement that would have brought peace, but Russia ignored it. They killed Dudayev, who was the best guarantee for a lasting, peaceful solution, and refused negotiations with his successors when they didn't kill them outright. Now all that there will ever be for any Russians in Chechnya will be an ongoing blooobath until they let it go or commit total genocide.

Your analogy is so inapplicable it isn't even funny. Try studying the history of the region for a bit before spouting simplistic Russian apologist propaganda.

Edi

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-09-02 05:54am

Edi wrote:Take a look at the map: Chechnya is nowhere near the center of Russia.

Conceded. The Wikipedia shows it bordering with something, so ...

Furthermore, Chechnyans are a separate people forcibly conquered (and only in 1871) who never accepted that fate and submitted.

If you had been conquered for over 100 years, you are basically conquered for good by modern standards. Before 1870, Germany was a bunch of pieces of which Prussia is the largest AFAIK. The Americans are somewhere in getting the Natives to either sign Treaties" or wipe them out. Honestly, I'm not too sympathetic on this point.

And can anyone really fix that year down?
This site claims it was 1864 and the Wikipedia says 1859.

Furthermore, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, Moscow let them become defacto independent at the same time as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became independent and the states of Kazakhstan, Kirgistan, Uzbekistan and others were formed.

De facto... that means they never really recognized them, right? Just like China. Taiwan might be de facto independent, but no one gave up any claims. No one else even recognizes Chechenya as a nation. Those people don't even have their own currency.

Russia only tried to take Chechnya back in 1994, again by force, and got its ass handed to it. They withdrew in 1996. In 1999, they invaded again and proceeded to reduce the whole country to a pile of rubble (the parts that they hadn't destroyed in the previous war) as well as commit continual atrocities against the people there.

I don't think I'm praising the Russians' amazing military efficiency in taking back what it thinks are theirs, or any of their atrocities.

The reason Russia didn't let Chechnya go like the Baltic states were let go? There is, or rather, was, a major oil pipeline from the Caspian that ran through Chechnya and they didn't want to give that up.

By the standards of nations, that's more than an adequate reason to refuse permission for independence. Just because they let those Baltic states go does not mean they have to let the Chechens go, whether economic factors were involved or not.

There was a window for negotiating a settlement that would have brought peace, but Russia ignored it.

To a nation, territorial integrity can easily be worth more than peace.

The point of the darn story is, from the Russian point of view, it is theirs. Why must they negotiate with what to them is little more than a bunch of traitors? Would the US negotiate in the case of threat to its national integrity from what it'd consider to be internal reasons?

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-02 06:25am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Edi wrote:Take a look at the map: Chechnya is nowhere near the center of Russia.
Conceded. The Wikipedia shows it bordering with something, so ...

Georgia. Chechnya is bordering Georgia and the pass between them has been used as a training area by certain AQ affiliated elements as well as a refuge by other sorts of fugitives.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Furthermore, Chechnyans are a separate people forcibly conquered (and only in 1871) who never accepted that fate and submitted.
If you had been conquered for over 100 years, you are basically conquered for good by modern standards. Before 1870, Germany was a bunch of pieces of which Prussia is the largest AFAIK. The Americans are somewhere in getting the Natives to either sign Treaties" or wipe them out. Honestly, I'm not too sympathetic on this point.

If you look at the Baltic states, they were a part of Russia for a lot longer than Chechnya has, several hundred years. They enjoyed a brief spell of independence from the end of WW1 to WW2 and got again crushed and oppressed by Russians, and now they are independent again. I don't see why Chechnya should be regarded any differently, especially since their declaration of independence in 1991 went uncontested for three years.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:And can anyone really fix that year down?
This site claims it was 1864 and the Wikipedia says 1859.

Looks like I was wrong about the year. My newspaper says 1858, but the actual year varies depending on what criteria are used (official statements, actual ending of resistance or whetever). The official annexation is in 1858, but resistance continued for decades after that.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
There was a window for negotiating a settlement that would have brought peace, but Russia ignored it.
To a nation, territorial integrity can easily be worth more than peace.

The point of the darn story is, from the Russian point of view, it is theirs. Why must they negotiate with what to them is little more than a bunch of traitors?

So, Russia would have been justified in reducing Tallinn, Vilnius and Riga to rubble and devastating Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and driving hundreds of thousands of Balts into exile in squalid refugee camps just because from their point of view those countries were theirs? Because territorial integrity of a conglomeration of nations that has been achieved by brutal conquest and continual oppression is that important?

As far as I'm concerned, Russia has lost any claim to Chechnya through its actions. They could have granted greater autonomy, like they gave Tatarstan, or done something else, but the basic Russian government response to anyone and everyone who does not unquestioningly buckle under and submit to oppression is massive use of military force accompanied by systematic atrocities.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:Would the US negotiate in the case of threat to its national integrity from what it'd consider to be internal reasons?

No, it would not. There is however this point: The US was built through a brutal conquest that involved a genocide so successful that there is nobody left to contest it, and further, those who did survive that genocide have now been given arguably more rights than the average citizen instead of still being brutally oppressed over 100 years after the conquest. This tends to make your rhetorical question completely irrelevant. Besides, we do have examples of what the US will do in similar cases from 1990s, the Waco incident in Texas being the most well known. Negotiation first, then using force and not in an indiscriminate manner. The US government didn't start a random terror campaign against the citizens of Waco just because there were a few fuckwits who defied them there.

Edi

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-09-02 06:53am

You can't compare Waco to the situation in Chechnya, Edi- a more appropriate example would be what those unidentified terrorists are doing right now in Beslan, the Russians are negotiating. Nothing will come out of those negotiations, of course, but they will try and settle it peacefully before they (probably) have to storm the place, which is the norm of these things.

And regarding the Baltic States- they became independent as the results of referendums, Chechnya never did- today, even independent polls reveal that more than 70% of Chechens see Chechnya as being part of Russia. Furthermore, the Baltic States did not become a festering boil of organized crime, drug/gun smuggling like Chechnya did for it's 3 years of independence. IMO, Russia was fully justified in reasserting control when it was obvious that they couldn't prevent the place from degenerating into a destructive shithole. The Russians let how many of the former Soviet republics go in 1991? What makes Chechnya stand out is the unstable hole it became, and the shit its spewed into the surrounding area for about a decade now. And when the Russians left in 1996, what happened? Another 3 years of the same old shit, combined with terrorist attacks and invasions into neighboring territory to boot.

Furhtermore, the Baltic states were separate republics within the Soviet Union, not a constituent part of the Russian Federation (then the RSFSR) as Chechnya is.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-02 08:03am

Vympel wrote:You can't compare Waco to the situation in Chechnya, Edi- a more appropriate example would be what those unidentified terrorists are doing right now in Beslan, the Russians are negotiating. Nothing will come out of those negotiations, of course, but they will try and settle it peacefully before they (probably) have to storm the place, which is the norm of these things.

And regarding the Baltic States- they became independent as the results of referendums, Chechnya never did- today, even independent polls reveal that more than 70% of Chechens see Chechnya as being part of Russia. Furthermore, the Baltic States did not become a festering boil of organized crime, drug/gun smuggling like Chechnya did for it's 3 years of independence. IMO, Russia was fully justified in reasserting control when it was obvious that they couldn't prevent the place from degenerating into a destructive shithole. The Russians let how many of the former Soviet republics go in 1991? What makes Chechnya stand out is the unstable hole it became, and the shit its spewed into the surrounding area for about a decade now. And when the Russians left in 1996, what happened? Another 3 years of the same old shit, combined with terrorist attacks and invasions into neighboring territory to boot.

Furhtermore, the Baltic states were separate republics within the Soviet Union, not a constituent part of the Russian Federation (then the RSFSR) as Chechnya is.

I'm going to concede this, apart from adding the comment that Chechnya became that kind of a shithole precisely because Yeltsin was relying on a lot of Chechens for various tasks and consequently he let them run the place as they wished, which led to these problems. I hada rather heated debate about the subject with a Russian expat on another forum a couple of years ago.