The bastards did it.

Galilite, I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Hiding atrocities has been a problem since the Vietnam war, the first one to be televised. We are all human beings, born with the potential to kill, maim, and generally disregard the sanctity of life, whatever 'side' we are on. Personally, in the wake of this, all I'm concerned with is that my father has to fly to Moscow next week for a business meeting. Screw the politics.

0 Replies

So then, Gallilite, you're denying the horrendous casualties among civilians when the Israelis decided to use helicopter gunships to take out the alleged residence of an alleged Hammas member? Even when it is definitely known that a Hammas member lives in a certain building, the civilian casualties are high. American air strikes in Iraq often have the same consequences. For however you see it, and for however western popular media report it, the Islamic world not only does not see a distinction, they regard the entire terrotist "tit-for-tat" as having been initiated by the Israelis and the Americans. You can howl about your justifications to your heart's content, it will not alter the reality of people from all sides throwing fuel on this particular fire.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Galilite, I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Hiding atrocities has been a problem since the Vietnam war, the first one to be televised. We are all human beings, born with the potential to kill, maim, and generally disregard the sanctity of life, whatever 'side' we are on.

There are atrocities, I don't debate this.

My point is (OK, two points):

1. The military don't need civilians to be killed; the terrorists do, that's their job.
2. In the cases of Middle East and Russia, all the interested sides have excellent media coverage. In Middle East (Israel in particular) it's more "media war", the one who gets the status of victim, wins :-( . Strictly speaking, the entire conflict is childplay comparing, for example, to the conflict in Molukkans (15,000 casualties), Philippines' insurgences in Mindanao (100,000 or so) or Kashmir (don't know how much) which receive far less coverage. Now because of such coverage it is very unlikely any kind of major action would go unnoticed.

cavfancier wrote:

Personally, in the wake of this, all I'm concerned with is that my father has to fly to Moscow next week for a business meeting. Screw the politics.

I believe it's safe there. As long as your father doesn't look Chechen or Arab. In this case, I'ld think twice before going there.

First, usually there's a large interval between high scale attacks like this (that's what my Israeli experience says). Terrorists have limited resources and it's not good time to strike now.

Second, Russians are now particularly alert of anything suspicious.

Third, Moscow is too far from these flammable regions.

Again, I would be wary of the Russian skinheads and the likes who are probably thirsty for some Chechen blood now.

Hope it'll be alright...

0 Replies

Galilite, it seems you have some personal knowledge about the situation. I don't know if you have already posted a thread specificallly related to the problem, but if you haven't, please do, in politics. I hope things will be alright too.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So then, Gallilite, you're denying the horrendous casualties among civilians when the Israelis decided to use helicopter gunships to take out the alleged residence of an alleged Hammas member?

Nope, I didn't deny this.

See my reply to Cavfancier.

Setanta wrote:

Even when it is definitely known that a Hammas member lives in a certain building, the civilian casualties are high.

See, the evil irony is that in most cases it reduces civilian casualties.

If it'll turn out that these few Palestinians, Saudis and Jordanians belonged to Hammas and that Hammas was aiding the Chechens, I won't be very surprised. I won't be surprised if it'll turn that the Hammas commanders were spared from another helicopter attack because of the protests issued by Russian governments.

However, we're steering from the subject.

0 Replies

Which is to say, you'd rather not have a response to your nonsense. Attacks on Palestinian residential areas reduce civilian casualties? Oh my achin' ass . . . you mean they might temporarily reduce Israeli casualties, which is all that matters to you, because i suspect you could care less if all of the Palestinians were blown to hell tomorrow. It's just upping the ante in the exchange--every gunship attacks breeds more suicide bombings.

And, on the subject of this thread, you're trying to drag out the same crusade agains Islam crap that others have posted here. I do not doubt for a moment that Muslims from all over the world have fought with the Chechens at one time or another. That does not alter one whit that the Chechens are locked in an ethnic struggle with the Russians, now nearly two centuries old, and that this has nothing to do with some imaginary world-wide Islamic conspiracy. I also note that no one lifted an eyebrow when Muslims from the middle east and Afghanistan joined NATO to fight the Serbs in Bosnia--as Martin Luther cogently observed, it depends upon whose ox was gored.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Galilite, it seems you have some personal knowledge about the situation. I don't know if you have already posted a thread specificallly related to the problem, but if you haven't, please do, in politics. I hope things will be alright too.

Thanks for the invitation.

The knowledge comes mostly from personal experience - I grew up in Moscow until the age 15, then my family moved to Israel. I also have close personal acquaintances in Southeast Asia, so I'm a little familiar with this area, too.

And, frankly, what'ld be more interesting is not determining who's right and who's wrong but rather insights how things will develop.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Which is to say, you'd rather not have a response to your nonsense. Attacks on Palestinian residential areas reduce civilian casualties? Oh my achin' ass . . .

I suggest we switch to more decent language.

You're talking like these residential areas are randomly selected.

Setanta wrote:

you mean they might temporarily reduce Israeli casualties, which is all that matters to you, because i suspect you could care less if all of the Palestinians were blown to hell tomorrow.

This is a powerful statement. Do you know me personally to make such claims?

I do care more about Israelis though, because my butt is there... wouldn't you?

Setanta wrote:

It's just upping the ante in the exchange--every gunship attacks breeds more suicide bombings.

You might want to address the statistics. Count the number of terror attacks in 2002, in 2003, in 2004.

I hope to dig up a graph for all those skeptics...

Setanta wrote:

And, on the subject of this thread, you're trying to drag out the same crusade agains Islam crap that others have posted here.

I suggest you look up and determine who started talking about Israel and Palestine, you or me. I was addressing the subject of media coverage only.

I do have strong negative feelings towards Islam (not Muslims), but it's not what the thread is about and I am not dragging it out.

Setanta wrote:

I do not doubt for a moment that Muslims from all over the world have fought with the Chechens at one time or another.

I do. Being on someone's side is one thing, contributing to the cause and organizing stuff is another...

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

Palestinians did this only once as far as I remember (circa 1973) and abandoned the idea very quickly.

Quote:

Forget about average Americans and Al Jazeera. French media won't miss a chance to show American (and Western in general) atrocities. Moreover, the latter are always inflated; I remember one time when Israeli army used color markers to write the numbers on the prisoners' wrists and the media compared them to Nazis (again). Now, if the terrorists would use a color marker on hostages, would it make to media?

No, i did not introduce the topic of Israel and Palestine to this thread--you did. Your suggestion about langauge will be ignored, inasmuch as i have not violated the terms of service, nor made any personal remarks insulting you, so get over it. No, i don't know you personally, and you will not that i did not positively state that you have such a feeling, but rather surmised it. Your objection is ironic, however, in view of this:

Quote:

I do care more about Israelis though, because my butt is there... wouldn't you?

This is a style of argumentation in which you scatter objections to what i've written without considering the possibility of self-contradiction. The United States has been attacked, and i have never considered that a justification for civilian deaths, and my record of posting here demonstrates as much.

Quote:

Do you know that terror attacks provoke retaliations? Do you think the terrorists unaware of this? Not to mention that it doesn't happen the way you described...

Statement from authority--care to demonstrate how it does work, then? This is nothing more than making a claim to refute what i've written without substantiating your counterclaim. And while we're here with this contention between us . . .

Quote:

You might want to address the statistics. Count the number of terror attacks in 2002, in 2003, in 2004.

I hope to dig up a graph for all those skeptics...

You do so, and don't forget to factor in the relative military resources of Palestinians and Israelis. How many gunships does Hammas possess? How many billions in U.S. aid has Palestine received from the United States since 1948? This reeks of selt-congratulation over the number of Palestinians who are allegedly involved in terrorist attacks who have been killed by "defense forces" during the Intifada, and once again, takes no account of the civilian deaths and the consequent hardening of attitudes on both sides. Which is germaine to this topic, given how that equation has worked between the Russians and Chechens since 1817.

Quote:

I do have strong negative feelings towards Islam (not Muslims), but it's not what the thread is about and I am not dragging it out.

The candor is refreshing, and i have noted your comment about the horror over this event in the Muslim world. Do pardon me for the suspicion about an anti-Islam crusade mentality, althogh i will note again that you have here expressed negative feelings toward Islam.

Finally, i consider you naive to doubt that Muslims from around the world have or will fight with the Chechens. They flocked to Afghanistan in the 1980's, the most obvious example of which is Bin Laden and the Wahabbis going there for jihad in the 1980's. They went to Bosnia, and have gone to Iraq, although the hyper-patriots here wildly overestimate the figures, and try to claim that the insurgency is a case of "fighting them there rather than here," which is grossly naive.

Certainly terrorists are a minority, and certainly they do not represent majority opinion in the communities from which they come. That does not, however, mean that one can expect fanaticism in the human race to lessen, history certainly does not suggest as much. Ingush and Chechen fanatics will very likely continue to attack or attempt to attack Russian targets, even if support in their own communities lessens. As these things fall out historically, one can expect much less restraint from the common Russian footsoldier in the Caucasus, and consequent hardening of attitudes on both sides. The equation is really quite simple from the point of view of fanatics, and has been the same with ideological fanatics, such as Bolsheviks, ethnic fanatics as in this case, or religious fanatics, as in the case of the Irish. We can exchange rational analysis until we are all blue in the face, and it won't mean a hill of beans to a fanatic.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Palestinians did this only once as far as I remember (circa 1973) and abandoned the idea very quickly.

Galilite wrote:
Forget about average Americans and Al Jazeera. French media won't miss a chance to show American (and Western in general) atrocities. Moreover, the latter are always inflated; I remember one time when Israeli army used color markers to write the numbers on the prisoners' wrists and the media compared them to Nazis (again). Now, if the terrorists would use a color marker on hostages, would it make to media?
No, i did not introduce the topic of Israel and Palestine to this thread--you did.

This is ridiculous.

I was referring to historic examples relevant to the media coverage thing, and you started to ask about whether Israel was right or wrong bombing civilians. Remember that the original conversation was about the asymmetric media coverage? Rolling Eyes

You might as well quote the text below my avatar... there's some reference to Israel, too, right?

Setanta wrote:

Your suggestion about langauge will be ignored, inasmuch as i have not violated the terms of service, nor made any personal remarks insulting you, so get over it.

OK, let's play by the rules of your aching ass then.

Setanta wrote:

No, i don't know you personally, and you will not that i did not positively state that you have such a feeling, but rather surmised it. Your objection is ironic, however, in view of this:

Quote:
I do care more about Israelis though, because my butt is there... wouldn't you?

Stop playing with words.

You claimed that I wouldn't care if all the Palestinians die overnight. I said I do care, but since I have, you know, those self-preservation instincts, I care more to survive myself.

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
You might want to address the statistics. Count the number of terror attacks in 2002, in 2003, in 2004.

I hope to dig up a graph for all those skeptics...
You do so, and don't forget to factor in the relative military resources of Palestinians and Israelis.

What I wanted to say here is that there's direct relation between the efficient attacks on Hamas / Islamic Jihad and the diminishing number of recent terror attacks. And, except for the figures, this is simple common sense.

And I don't get your question about the aid. I suppose you wanted to denote (again), that Israel is bad, and Palestine is better. Did you know that the aid per capita that Palestine receives is about 5-6 times higher than Israel?

This data I found here (a great source of statistics, by the way):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_rec_cap

If you did, then what did you want to say?

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
I do have strong negative feelings towards Islam (not Muslims), but it's not what the thread is about and I am not dragging it out.
The candor is refreshing, and i have noted your comment about the horror over this event in the Muslim world. Do pardon me for the suspicion about an anti-Islam crusade mentality,

OK.

Setanta wrote:

althogh i will note again that you have here expressed negative feelings toward Islam.

I'm just being honest.

If you want, I'm willing to discuss this and all of the Israel and Islam-related issues, but in other threads relevant to these subjects.

I won't run away.

Setanta wrote:

Finally, i consider you naive to doubt that Muslims from around the world have or will fight with the Chechens. They flocked to Afghanistan in the 1980's, the most obvious example of which is Bin Laden and the Wahabbis going there for jihad in the 1980's. They went to Bosnia, and have gone to Iraq, although the hyper-patriots here wildly overestimate the figures, and try to claim that the insurgency is a case of "fighting them there rather than here," which is grossly naive.

This is exactly what I mean. There were very few volunteers; the best proof to this is that Israel still exists.

I know the Saudi instructors among the Chechens are there for long time; but their number is insignificant.

And, there are no Malaysians, Bahrainians, even Pakistanis.

Setanta wrote:

Certainly terrorists are a minority, and certainly they do not represent majority opinion in the communities from which they come.

Hmm... Not always, unfortunately. OK, not majority, but sometimes they stand for significant percentage.

However, again, I just can't think of any possible way to gain popularity by Reslan.

Setanta wrote:

As these things fall out historically, one can expect much less restraint from the common Russian footsoldier in the Caucasus, and consequent hardening of attitudes on both sides. The equation is really quite simple from the point of view of fanatics, and has been the same with ideological fanatics, such as Bolsheviks, ethnic fanatics as in this case, or religious fanatics, as in the case of the Irish. We can exchange rational analysis until we are all blue in the face, and it won't mean a hill of beans to a fanatic.

You forgot to mention the oil deposits in Chechnya... maybe it has something to do with it, too?

0 Replies

My point about military resources and aid is that claiming that insurgency during the Intifada has decreased does not provide any evidence about whether or not the desire to murder Israelis or Palestinians has decreased, it simply demonstrates the military superiority of Israel. I have check out Mr. Luke Metcalfe and nationmaster.com, and consider it a reliable source--and i note that the chart to which you have linked regards economic aid, and not military aid. Try this chart, Military Expenditure per capita, on which Israel tops the list, spending more than 50% per capita than the United States--it is rather revealing on the topic of what might account for the decrease in Palestinian attacks during the Intifada. Statistics themselves are the equivalent of word games, and have been irrefutable shown to be the leading cause of cancer in laboratory animals. (insert ridiculous emticon here)

I did not claim that you didn't care if all the Palestinians died over night--stop playing word games. I surmised that this might be the case, and you have answered that.

You have said authoritatively that there are few Saudis, and no Bahrainians, Malaysians or Pakistanis aiding Chechen extremists. What is your source for such a statement? Do you categorically state that no nationals of those nations are to be found in Chechnya or Ingusetia?

On the issue of numbers involved, i refer you again to my remarks about fanatics and fanaticism. Gaining popular support is useful to them, but not an essential part of any fanatic's agenda. It is the conviction of holding an absolute truth and acting upon that which motivates the fanatic, whether religious or political, and that is why our attempt at rational discussion is meaningless from the point of view of the fanatic.

There is indeed a great irony on the subject of petroleum in the Caucasus. In 1722 and -23, Petr Alexeevitch decided upon a campaign on the shores of the Caspian, with a view to taking the territory from Persia, but in a manner not to completely alienate them, because his object was to engross as much of the Far East trade as possible, and by a route other than the slow overland and river barge traffic through Russia as it then existed, and which could see goods two or three years "on the road" before arriving at Archangel or St. Petersburg. No one then had any notion of there being any inherent value in petroleum. Nicholas Pavlovitch was intent only upon destroying any culture or religion in his empire which was not Russian and Orthodox. Petroleum has simply upped the ante in this vicious game.

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

I suppose you wanted to denote (again), that Israel is bad, and Palestine is better.

I forgot to address this. I've made no such contention, so there is no "denoting again" as i haven't "denoted" it before. Keep your paranoia to yourself.

0 Replies

Hmm... It's after 18:00 here, must be late night where people waltz Matildas. You might wait with the answer, I'm going home now...

Setanta wrote:

My point about military resources and aid is that claiming that insurgency during the Intifada has decreased does not provide any evidence about whether or not the desire to murder Israelis or Palestinians has decreased, it simply demonstrates the military superiority of Israel.

Oh. Guess this is right.

Unfortunately, this is what most wars are about.

Setanta wrote:

I have check out Mr. Luke Metcalfe and nationmaster.com, and consider it a reliable source--and i note that the chart to which you have linked regards economic aid, and not military aid.

OK, my mistake. Although I'm not sure if such thing can be calculated - a state requests financial help, then does with it whatever it wants... right?

By the way, care to share the URL to that Luke Metcalfe resource? I'm a statistics freak.

Setanta wrote:

Try this chart, Military Expenditure per capita, on which Israel tops the list, spending more than 50% per capita than the United States--it is rather revealing on the topic of what might account for the decrease in Palestinian attacks during the Intifada.

Well... Yes. For intense military action one needs to increase the military funding.

Setanta wrote:

Statistics themselves are the equivalent of word games, and have been irrefutable shown to be the leading cause of cancer in laboratory animals. (insert ridiculous emticon here)

But if you make a math-related claim, this is the only tool to support it.

Setanta wrote:

You have said authoritatively that there are few Saudis, and no Bahrainians, Malaysians or Pakistanis aiding Chechen extremists. What is your source for such a statement? Do you categorically state that no nationals of those nations are to be found in Chechnya or Ingusetia?

Well, I still read Russian press and they always make a lot of noise when a foreigner aiding Chechens is caught, but there were no reports of the above.

Setanta wrote:

On the issue of numbers involved, i refer you again to my remarks about fanatics and fanaticism. Gaining popular support is useful to them, but not an essential part of any fanatic's agenda.

Not sure here. I say the lack of support made the Red Brigades and the likes disappear and IRA will never strike back of the same reason.

Setanta wrote:

It is the conviction of holding an absolute truth and acting upon that which motivates the fanatic, whether religious or political, and that is why our attempt at rational discussion is meaningless from the point of view of the fanatic.

This is true, however, fanatics also have their own logic and their own rules.

Setanta wrote:

There is indeed a great irony on the subject of petroleum in the Caucasus. In 1722 and -23, Petr Alexeevitch decided upon a campaign on the shores of the Caspian, with a view to taking the territory from Persia, but in a manner not to completely alienate them, because his object was to engross as much of the Far East trade as possible, and by a route other than the slow overland and river barge traffic through Russia as it then existed, and which could see goods two or three years "on the road" before arriving at Archangel or St. Petersburg. No one then had any notion of there being any inherent value in petroleum. Nicholas Pavlovitch was intent only upon destroying any culture or religion in his empire which was not Russian and Orthodox. Petroleum has simply upped the ante in this vicious game.

Didn't know that, frankly, you put me to shame here.

Out of curiosity, where's the knowledge is from?

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Finn. I posted a report from the BBC stating that the Russian Security forces had botched the operation, that perhaps there was a lot of needless carnage. In no way does this infer that the Chechens are innocent. It would behoove all the nations fighting terrorism to learn from these mistakes for it is just a matter of time before this scenario is repeated.

Yes, I'm afraid that you are right, and by the way, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone on this board implied the Chechens were not to blame (thus the "imposing on this board" comment)

It may very well be that the Russian security forces didn't perform as well as they might have, but, obviously, they wouldn't have had to perform at all if the terrorist monsters hadn't created the situation.

It is quite easy to second guess authorities who must deal with such incredibly variable and volatile situations, but not quite so easy to actually deal with the situations themselves. To some extent I think we have all come to believe that the miraculously precise and effective operations we see in movies can be imitated in real life. The raid on the Entebbe airport, arguably the most precise and successful such operation in history, wasn't without non-terrorist casualties, and the Israelis (who were and may continue to be the most prepared for such contingencies) had more time to plan for a less fluid situation.

I think the Russian security forces were immediately called into question because of their earlier ill fated rescue attempt in the Moscow theatre, and I suppose this is somewhat natural, but I would have expected this to be a follow-up line on the story, not the lead.

What nation has anything even close to a winning, let alone perfect, record in dealing with these situations? The United States certainly doesn't. Look what happened in Waco Texas?

If I were a Russian I would not be pleased with the extent to which my government has prepared for these situations. If the Russians do not now assume an Israeli like degree of vigilance and preparedness, they are more than foolish. However, I don't believe I would have all that much blame left for the authorities after I considered the actions of the terrorists.

Again, terrorist attacks are not natural phenomenon. We can prepare for Hurricanes, but there is nothing we can do to prevent them. Over the years, at least in America, the number of fatalities associated with natural disasters has been reduced dramatically thanks to improved preparedness and response. For me, at least, it is unacceptable that this would ever be the goal for our reaction to terrorism. The manner of the new coverage of this tragedy suggest that, in some quarters, this may be the case.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

But you rock on, Finn, i already know you come here to pick fights, as opposed to learning or teaching useful knowledge.

Clearly, Setanta, you have a burr under your saddle when it come to me. I suspect that the origin of your ill favor is when I pointed out that your position on conservative Christians is a form of bigotry.

This is not the first time, since then, that you have taken a similarly gratutious shot in my direction, and judging by the color of your bile, I suspect it will not be the last.

I am not about to respond to your ludicrous opinion of my intentions in this forum. Think of them how you will, but I would think more highly of you if you engaged in a debate on my points and discontinued your ad hominem attacks. I doubt you care about the level of my regard for you, but it might keep you from projecting such a peevish image.

0 Replies

Hey Galilite in Israel there, the US is ahead of your zone, timewise.
The way I remember it is, the sun rises in the east, so the world rolls eastward. The dateline is in the Pacific somewhere, so you will be eight or nine hours ahead of your American correspondents, something like that.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Hey Galilite in Israel there, the US is ahead of your zone, timewise.
The way I remember it is, the sun rises in the east, so the world rolls eastward. The dateline is in the Pacific somewhere, so you will be eight or nine hours ahead of your American correspondents, something like that.

Thanks, but isn't Setanta an Aussie?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Galilite wrote:
I suppose you wanted to denote (again), that Israel is bad, and Palestine is better.
I forgot to address this. I've made no such contention, so there is no "denoting again" as i haven't "denoted" it before. Keep your paranoia to yourself.

You know, it was stupid enough of me to swallow your flamebait yesterday, but I will not do it again.

Borrowing your lexicon, you can keep your severe ass-aches to yourself, too.

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

Thanks, but isn't Setanta an Aussie?

Are you joking? Or from what do you guess that?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Thanks, but isn't Setanta an Aussie?
Are you joking? Or from what do you guess that?

From the reference to "Waltzing Matilda".

He's not, huh? This makes sense.

0 Replies

The bastards did it.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know