1
   

Chechnyan Murder of Innocents

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:12 am
Well, soz, what I meant was only related to "they [the Chechens] have lost my sympathy.

I'm totally against any kind of solving problems by any force.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:14 am
Jim wrote:
When the Soviet Union collapsed they gave independence to a dozen or more of their republics. So why fight so hard to hold onto Chechnya? Does anyone know why it is so important to the Russians?

Apart from all the reasons above, there is an important distinction here between, say, Uzbek independence and Chechen independence. Its got to do with how the Soviet Union was made up.

The USSR was based on a complex, multi-tier territorial adminsitrative system, nominally based on nationality/ethnicity. There were fifteen Socialist Soviet Republics (SSR's). Each formally had their own government and government apparatus, tho of course it got its instructions straight from Moscow. Those are the republics that each became their own country after 1991.

But within each of those republics, you had further subdivisions, for example Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republics (ASSR's), Autonomous Oblasts, etc. All were nominally based on one or the other ethnic group's right to self-government, though there was no real administrative autonomy for all those different little government apparatuses, of course, and over time, Russians actually came to make up the majority population in many of these places. (Plus, Stalin made sure to have the borders cut through various ethnic delineations in order to create minorities within minorities everywhere - divide et impera).

Now you can imagine that its one thing for the 15 SSR Presidents, in 1991, to decide to amiably part company and each take control of his own fiefdom - and another to then each become confronted with the very same kind of fracturing and demands of break-away ares within his own, newly established state.

For example: within the Georgian SSR, you had the South-Ossetian ASSR, Abchaz ASSR and Adzhar something-or-other of a lesser administrative distinction. And after Georgia's independence, Abchazia and South-Ossetia declared independence from Georgia and war flared up in both.

Now within the Russian Federation, you had (have) countless of such autonomous republics and areas. And in/after '91, those administrative subdivisions became the basis and channel for as many pushes for autonomy within or separation from the Russian Federation again.

Chechnya (then Checheno-Ingushetia) was one of the ASSRs within the Russian Federation. So this is where they drew the line. The Russians cut their losses in terms of the Soviet Union's split up, and then drew the new line at any separation from their newly established core state.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:23 am
Thanks, nimh, for these precise descriptions.

Going further back in history, we see that the Chechens and other Caucasian tribes mounted a prolonged resistance to Russian conquest from the 1830s through the '50s .
When the Russians used larger forces in their later campaigns, and, when the Chechen leader Shamil was captured in 1859, many of his followers migrated to Armenia (> background to Leo Tolstoy's novel "The Cossacks").

The Chechen autonomous oblast (province) was created by the Bolsheviks in November 1920. In 1934 it was merged with the Ingush autonomous oblast to form a joint Chechen-Ingush autonomous region, which two years later was designated a republic. When the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin accused the Chechen and Ingush of collaboration with the Germans during World War II, they were exiled to Central Asia, and the republic of Checheno-Ingushetia was dissolved. The exiles were allowed to return to their homeland, and the republic was reestablished under the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1957.
0 Replies
 
thospb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:51 am
child victums of the Crusades
In the 1st Crusade, the invaders of jeruselum slaughtered every inhabitant that was not chistian, men, women, children. This was done , I believe, as a way of eliminating rebellion from a tactical position ostensibly. Realistically, it was probably a result of the frustration from a nearly four year long campaign.

In the Chechen situation, I believe this was an act of desperation. We are all capable of descpicable acts it is only a question of how desperate we become. Luckily, most people and causes would choose another path than the one taken this past week by by the rebels.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 09:14 am
Quote:
BTW, what IS the case for keeping Chechnya in the Russian federation? Is it merely a matter of preserving national pride for the Russians? Are they afraid of setting a precedent for other breakaway groups




I wondered that myself. I found one explanation:

Chechnya's main mineral wealth is oil. All in all, the republic has about 30 oil fields, which in November 2002 were yielding up to 4,000 tons of oil a day. The locals have used this black gold for domestic needs and medicinal purposes since ancient times, extracting it from oil springs and specially dug wells.

At the beginning of last century, commercial oil was produced at only three fields. The Soviet authorities ordered detailed studies to be made of the geological structure of the Grozny oil province, which discovered a string of new oil deposits.

In the 1930s and 40s, work started to develop the major Chechen fields: Benoi, Malgobek, Goragor, Oisungur, Adu-Yurt and Tashkalin. Apart from oil and gas, Chechnya has large reserves of mineral materials used in the construction industry.

Source
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 09:54 am
dyslexia wrote:
so will we next have Putin display a show of force (if we go in with power, we can show those sonsabitches, what real killing is all about)
will we never learn?
or, perhaps Putin can take the Bush model and invade Nepal.


Nah - France.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:09 am
Why blame the terrorists, when we have Bush and Putin so handy. The terrorists aren't responsible for the innocent deaths, its all those nasty governments who are unable to prevent murder by being saintly.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:12 am
Asherman, I don't think anyone is NOT blaming the terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:20 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:

BTW, what IS the case for keeping Chechnya in the Russian federation? Is it merely a matter of preserving national pride for the Russians? Are they afraid of setting a precedent for other breakaway groups


One reason is very simple: the Russian constitution:

Quote:
Article 66.
...
5. The status of a subject of the Russian Federation may be changed only with mutual consent of the Russian Federation and the subject of the Russian Federation in accordance with the federal constitutional law.



Subjects are defined in
Quote:

Article 65.

1. The Russian Federation shall consist of the subjects of the Federation: Republic of Adygeya (Adygeya), Republic of Altai, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Dagestan, Ingush Republic, Kabardin-Balkar Republic, Republic of Kalmykia -- Khalmg Tangch, Karachayevo-Cherkess Republic, Republic of Karelia, Republic of Komi, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of North Ossetia, Republic of Tatarstan (Tatarstan), Republic of Tuva, Udmurt Republic, Republic of Khakasia, Chechen Republic, Chuvash Republic -- Chavash Republics; Altai Territory, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Maritime Territory, Stavropol Territory, Khabarovsk Territory; Amur Region, Arkhangelsk Region, Astrakhan Region, Belgorod Region, Bryansk Region, Vladimir Region, Volgograd Region, Vologda Region, Voronezh Region, Ivanovo Region, Irkutsk Region, Kaliningrad Region, Kaluga Region, Kamchatka Region, Kemerovo Region, Kirov Region, Kostroma Region, Kurgan Region, Kursk Region, Leningrad Region, Lipetsk Region, Magadan Region, Moscow Region, Murmansk Region, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Novgorod Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk Region, Orenburg Region, Oryol Region, Penza Region, Perm Region, Pskov Region, Rostov Region, Ryazan Region, Samara Region, Saratov Region, Sakhalin Region, Sverdlovsk Region, Smolensk Region, Tambov Region, Tver Region, Tomsk Region, Tula Region, Tyumen Region, Ulyanovsk Region, Chelyabinsk Region, Chita Region, Yaroslavl Region; Moscow, St. Petersburg -- federal cities; Jewish Autonomous Region; Aginsky Buryat Autonomous Area, Komi-Permyak Autonomous Area, Koryak Autonomous Area, Nenets Autonomous Area, Taimyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous Area, Ust-Ordynsky Buryat Autonomous Area, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, Chukchi Autonomous Area, Evenk Autonomous Area, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:42 am
I guess when a line such as this has been crossed ... pretty unthinkable by any standards ... it's only a matter of time before a suitcase bomb or the like makes it into the wrong hands. We've always assumed the ultimate target would be a Western population center or a Japanese subway, but the level of hatred (and desparation) in this region seems to have surpassed even that of Osama & Co.

I, too, am reading and learning. Many thanks.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:42 am
Sure sounds like a lot of folks are more harshly critical of Bush and Putin for responding to terrorist violence than the terrorists. It is the terrorists who are responsible for every death that results from their acts, not the victims and not the governments who must respond to protect the welfare and security of all their citizens. Some of the hostages may of died as a result of the attempt to save them, almost certainly more would have died if the security forces had not responded to explosions and shots fired from within. To surrender to the demands of terrorists only encourages the use of terrorist tactics of threats and coercion. Perhaps in the future the Russian government will not be so critical of American efforts to root-out terrorist organizations whereever they may find sanctuary and support. I'm sure its clear that I favor taking a very hard line against terrorist threats and hostage taking.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:44 am
BTW, "Chechen" as opposed to "Chechnyan" has been duly noted.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:50 am
Asherman: I've always felt that Putin was playing to his European audience when criticizing American foreign policy as well as appeasing the locals so as to not appear like a lapdog (a la Blair.) Russian intelligence has assisted the U.S. in the anti-terror campaign, and I don't believe the potential for disaster in Russia's Islamic regions is ever far from Putin's thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:14 am
Naw, I'm sure Putin would love to have the radical Islamic terrorists defeated far from Russian soil. How nice it would be if no Russians had to pay the blood price, and that those terrible Americans and Brits could be painted as imperialistic, capitalist warmongers. Catering to the masses who unrealistically dream that al bloodshed could be avoided if only Western Civilization changes its ways is certainly popular. Appeasement, for some reason is now expected to work when history has repeatedly shown that it only ends with larger and more bloody conflicts.

Repeated attacks by radical Islamic True Believers has still failed to awaken many heirs of Western Civilization to the threat. A few generations of relative peace and the seduction of idealism are apparently difficult for some folks to shake-off when confronted by an armed adversary who would like nothing better than to kill, or enslave them.

Prime Minister Blair is a courageous man willing to defend the nation from a serious threat, even though many of his constituents fail to see the need. I admire Blair, perhaps even more than President Bush. On the other hand, I feel some contempt for those governments who knuckle under to terrorist threats and violence rather than stand strongly against them regardless of how popular their actions would be judged.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:22 am
Asherman, not to open a can of worms, but what did you think of the government's handling of Waco?

To jump ahead (since I probably won't be back much today), I don't think it's zero sum, either/ or. The terrorists are of course responsible, yes. At the same time, I think the governments/militaries responsible for dealing with those terrorists can and should be held accountable. If a government/military handles a terrorist situation badly, the terrorists are of course the immediate cause of the problem and carry the ultimate responsibility, but that doesn't mean that the government/military should be exempt from censure.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:26 am
Asherman wrote:
Sure sounds like a lot of folks are more harshly critical of Bush and Putin for responding to terrorist violence than the terrorists. It is the terrorists who are responsible for every death that results from their acts, not the victims and not the governments who must respond to protect the welfare and security of all their citizens. Some of the hostages may of died as a result of the attempt to save them

You are usually a man I disagree with, but who's got a complete overview of the situation. But this time you have either not read what we wrote with much attention, or you have simply taken the situation upside down.

Of course only the terrorists are responsible for what they did last week. Its been duly noted (in my posts too) that the Chechen insurgents have radicalised into ruthless, gangster-like types. And again, only they carry responsibility for what happened last week.

What the Russian government is blamed for in this thread thus far is not - though it could be - for totally mishandling the hostage-taking situation, for its hapless, chaotic handling it. It was a mess, but everything in Russia always seems to be, and at least they tried. Russian men, both civilian and special ops, risked their lives to save the victims.

What I blame the Russian government for is not for the people the terrorists this week killed. But for the people it killed, over ten years of a bloody campaign of warfare-cum-state terror in Chechnya. Just because the extremists who did this last week are bad guys, doesnt immediately make the Russian government into the good guys.

I am astounded by the short-sightedness of how some have looked at this situation purely from a reflex of projection. On a conservative forum, the entire discussion re: Chechnya focused on whether it proved that the Spanish example of 'capitulation' before terrorists had emboldened them. Hello - these military attacks and terrorist counterattacks - or terrorist attacks and military counterattacks - around Chechnya have been taking place for much further back into time than the Spanish elections or 9/11. It has its own, autonomous history, but I guess thats simply too much complication. No, its just another example of Islamic True Believers, and thats all we need to know about it. We know the cookie-cutter solution to that.

I think the authorities effed up last week - but it's the terrorists who are to blame for those who died. Last week. The hundreds of people who died last week. And the hundreds who died in prior terrorist attacks. For the many thousands who have died in Chechnya since the Russian troops started pouring in now some ten years ago, however, the Russian government is largely to blame. For the flattening of Grozny and the mass rape of Chechen women, the Russian soldiers and government are to blame. I dont see how - just because last week, the Chechens in turn committed unspeakable acts, we should now consider those acts of horror erased, that we should not talk about it anymore, because if we do, someone like Asherman will come in to deride us for 'defending the terrorists'.

Asherman, you know full well that if you scroll up just a little bit, you can see several of us expressing disgust at what the terrorists did. It's you who is expressing selective disgust and condemnation - the Chechens now did something horrible, so thus we shouldnt mention what the Russians did anymore when we discuss Chechnya.

And to be honest, the fact that your judgement on this matter seems largely motivated by 'domestic' sentiments (see, it proves the US right, it'll teach the Russians not to disagree with us anymore next time) makes it, IMNSHO, rather distasteful.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:44 am
Nimh: The Russians do seem to have a tendency to "eff up" in these situations. Remember the movie house gassing? How bizarre was that? It seems they only see overwhelming force as an option, and whoever has to die, dies. Maybe they don't have the means for more surgical strikes -- SWAT teams, commandos, and the like?

I, too, was thinking of Waco, Sozobe. What more heavy-handed blunder could we have undertaken than that -- punching through walls with, what was it, a tank or some such vehicle? It's as if someone decides to do something - anything - just to break the status quo.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:56 am
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 12:03 pm
as George H W Bush once said in his election bid, "We gonna kick some ass"
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 12:11 pm
I can't believe Reno got away with Waco. Astonishing!

One thing--among many--that struck me about the Russian attempts to quash these two Chechen attacks is how poorly trained they are. They made the situations worse each time. The extreme gulf between their ability to handle things--and ours--just made me appreciate how good we have it.

Reporters commented on the Russian soldiers wearing tennis shoes, and being unkempt, having old equipment. While this isn't the hallmark of judgement on their forces' capabilities--it was a poignant indicator.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 10:18:40