The bastards did it.

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.

Sorry, Galilite, that was my fault. I should have known it was not clear where people are, and the Australian reference is misleading, to be sure.

Anyway, I'm here, so all is well.

Galilite, it is no "flame bait" to reject out of hand your attempt to label me at the least anti-Iraeli on the basis of flimsy inference, and at the worst, to inferentially label me anti-semitic, which is why i will again tell you to keep your paranoia to yourself.

Mr. Metcalfe is, as you would know if you did basic homework, the gentleman responsible for the site to which you originally linked when you sited encomomic assistance to Palestine.

Galilite, the references to Petr Alexeevitch and Nicholas Pavlovitch comes from my readings in history and biography generally. At the beginning of this thead (top of page two, i believe) i provided a narrative of the history of Russian vis-a-vis Chechnya/Ingusetia--a very brief one.

I do not believe that your references to the Red Brigade and the Provisional Irish Republican Army apply. The reason i say this is because Germans in the 1970's and -80's had something to lose from the action of the Red Brigades,

and much to gain from their suppression. In case of the Irish, although people often do not associate the Republic with the British occupied portions of Ulster, it is nevertheless important in any equation of peace there. I see it as no accident that the Provos (and the UDF--the Protestant Ulster Defense Force) have deteriorated into narco-terrorist, basically urban criminal gangs, as affluence has increased in the Republic, and the English are increasingly secure from major terrorist attack by the Provos. With much to lose, and nothing to gain, the Irish of the Republic are less inclined to shelter and support the Provos. Similarly, the Prods in Ulster get less support from the English.

Just as it does not require many fanatics to get murderous incidents like the one discussed in this thread, so it does not take very much support for their operations. However, once the population concerned in the area of origin of the fanatic truly have something to lose (as they perceive it), the base for the support of fanaticism quickly evaporates.

You have mentioned petroleum. The earliest efforts at an oil pipe-line of which i know from the oil region around Baku dates from the mid-1870's. It is entirely possible that the Chechen uprising of 1877 resulted from the sudden influx of a great many Russians come to build the oil fields, and to survey for a pipe line--although i'm not stating as much authoritatively.

Perhaps if the Russians had the sense (and were not blinded by two centuries of hatred between these peoples),

they would withdraw from Chechnya altogether, and simply control the flow of petroleum from the region, passing the cost along to the consumer--the West--while providing the Chechens and Ingush the necessary incentive to smother fanaticism at home--affluence.

I said this because it looks like you always support the oppressed side, because it looks like objectivity to you. No, not like this. You take two conflicting sides and tell them, "both of you are guilty, but the stronger side is more guilty". I always wondered who would support absurd laws allowing a burglar sue his victims because they didn't left him food in the fridge (and win the case); now I know.

This is base calumny, and far more egregious imputation than anything of which you could accuse me--and inclines me to ignore you in future. Find someone else to slander.

Why wouldn't they Gallilite, given the situation?

Galilite wrote:

In the late 80s nobody even knew who Chechens are. They did not play such an important role.

Well, at least those, who are and were interested in history and politics certainly knew about the situation there.

When has the oil business ever been 'professional', or even barely legal?

Putin vents his anger at the West: Don't tell me to talk to child-killers
At a time of national crisis, Mary Dejevsky is granted a rare audience with the Russian President
07 September 2004


Three days after the bloody end of the school siege in North Ossetia, the Russian President has attacked Western countries for observing double standards on terrorism, asking why they insisted on calling Chechen separatists "rebels'' while they always branded those responsible for the 11 September attacks in the United States as "terrorists''.

In an unexpected change of tone, however, Vladimir Putin also held out the prospect of a more conciliatory line towards Chechnya, praising Chechen traditions and suggesting there was a possibility of broad-based parliamentary elections there.

Mr Putin was answering questions from an international group of Russian specialists and journalists, including The Independent, at his residence at Novo Ogarevo, outside Moscow. In a wide-ranging conversation, which lasted for three and a half hours and ended only after midnight, Mr Putin said that Russia was quite prepared to show flexibility towards the rebellious region of Chechnya in future, but "not with those who do not stop at shooting children''.

His fists clenched, he said: "No one has the right to advise us to talk to people like that. I don't advise you to meet Bin Laden, invite him to Brussels and Nato or the White House, hold talks with him, and let him dictate what he wants so that he will then leave you alone. But you tell us that we should talk to everyone, including child-killers.''

Mr Putin had begun talking about Russia's problem with Chechen separatism in a much softer tone, however, charting a history of Russian- Chechen relations in which he paid tribute to the bravery of Chechens during the Second World War. Then, he said, they had probably had more heroes proportionately than any other ethnic group. One third of those defending the fortress at Brest on the Western Front were Chechens, and they had stood "until the very last bullet and the last drop of blood'', refusing to surrender, he said.

Mr Putin forcefully condemned what he said were serious mistakes made by Soviet leaders in dealing with the Chechens, starting with Stalin's order that expelled them from their homeland in the Caucasus to Central Asia and the far north of Russia. Many thousands died on the journey. "I have been to the camps in the far north and even today it's frightening to see,'' Mr Putin said. All these injustices together "could not but lead to separatism''.

Seeming to extend an olive branch to a much broader swath of Chechen opinion than hitherto, Mr Putin said: "We will continue our dialogue with civil society. This will include holding parliamentary elections, trying to get as many people as possible involved, with as many views and policies as possible.'' One of the big criticisms of Russia's policy in Chechnya is that it has held presidential elections from which the more popular opposition figures have been excluded, but delayed parliamentary elections.

Mr Putin gave a clear indication that he was open to the holding of parliamentary elections in Chechnya - although he did not give a date - in the hope of drawing many more people into the political process. He also said that the intention was to "strengthen law enforcement by staffing the police and other bodies in Chechnya with Chechens''.

The two moves together would amount to the continuation, even acceleration, of the policy of "Chechenisation'', which some believed would be reversed after the spate of recent attacks in Russia: the downing of two planes, a bomb near a Moscow underground station, and, last week, the siege of School Number One in Beslan that cost more than 300 lives.

In a little-noticed move two weeks before the attacks, the Russian government had decreed that Chechnya should be able to keep revenue from its oil, rather than remit the proceeds to Russia as currently happens. This was a major change in policy and one that irritated other regions that do not enjoy a similar right.

Mr Putin insisted, however, that Russia would retain troops in Chechnya. Their withdrawal is one of the separatists' main objectives. Russia had as much right to keep troops in the region as the US has to station its troops "in California or Texas'', he said.

Asked about human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, Mr Putin again went on the attack, saying: "Compare the torture of Iraqi prisoners. This hasn't happened on the direction of the top US leaders, but because of how individual people behaved in these circumstances. Those who are to blame must be punished.''

Russian troops had been responsible for "ugly phenomena'' in Chechnya, Mr Putin admitted, but this too was a product of the circumstances, he said, and the perpetrators were punished.

The Russian President also appeared to extend an invitation to foreign countries to assist with reconstruction in Chechnya - the first time that Russia has come near to soliciting any outside involvement. "We need to rehabilitate society in Chechnya to know there is another sort of life, and we would appreciate assistance with that.''

Quote:

Putin vents his anger at the West: Don't tell me to talk to child-killers

...When the kidnapping industry reached its peak a few years ago, there was even a relatively open "slave market" in Grozny, near Minutka Square, where the names and details of human livestock circulated on lists for interested buyers. Gangs often traded hostages or stole them from one another.

Year / Kidnapped / Released
1992 2 0
1993 2 0
1994 28 0
1995 302 12
1996 427 21
1997 361 41
1998 297 283
1999 341 484
2000 27 122
TOTAL 1,815 963

In 1999 more people were released than were kidnapped? Makes sense if they are from previous years but it doesn't look like the stats are compiled that way.