Grozny

[SeanAshi]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

[Kingpin]

Last photo you posted this is terrorists blowing up Chechen administration building (it happend couple years ago)

[Vance]

It's like a modern-day Berlin. Crazy.

[Kingpin]

BTW 150 000 dead - it is rather wild fantasies.

[mustamato]

BTW 150 000 dead - it is rather wild fantasies.

Ok make it 50.000 then, makes it acceptable immediately?

[Kingpin]

BTW 150 000 dead - it is rather wild fantasies.

Ok make it 50.000 then, makes it acceptable immediately?

Still wild fantasies

[mustamato]

BTW 150 000 dead - it is rather wild fantasies.

Ok make it 50.000 then, makes it acceptable immediately?

Still wild fantasies

Ah and the correct number is? Of course you don´t know that, but the estimates
usually land somewhere there, 50.000. Maybe not in Russia though, but everywhere
else..

[Kingpin]

Yeah, yeah. Let's remember western estimates of Iraqi WMD .
Also i found interesting comparison between Jane's estimates for Soviet army and real state of things which now disclosed.

And i like this title: "Wild fantasies". ****o! :)

[Kingpin]

Also i can be wrong but it seems this photo from 1995

http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg

Minutka square with presidental palace.

[Russian Texan]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

These photos are from the first war.
It sure does make one respect artillery.

BTW, numbers that you have posted are from the realm of the wild fantasy.

"Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword"

[Ichhabe]

mustamato: Please don't upset the Russians. They just want to leave the forum. ;)

Lets just say; 5. And 3 of them was due to a car crash.

[Macs.]

Good job russia... :roll:

Maybe next time you use some intelligent/smart bombs/rockets and don't just shoot down the whole country.

[Russian Texan]

mustamato: Please don't upset the Russians. They just want to leave the forum. ;)

Lets just say; 5. And 3 of them was due to a car crash.

You kidding, what's to get upset about?
If anything, I am proud of the power and great job done by Russian artillery :)
Here you go enjoy some Grad and Smerch vids
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/Grad_MLRS.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/9K58_Smerch_MLRS.wmv

[Russian Texan]

Good job russia... :roll:

Maybe next time you use some intelligent/smart bombs/rockets and don't just shoot down the whole country.

Why?

[tony6]

To dicrease the number of civilian casualities?

[Russian Texan]

To dicrease the number of civilian casualities?

What civilian casualties? :)
Ah...you are talking about peacelovingl chechen civilians that smile to Russian soldiers during day and place mines, shoot at them at night?
Don't really care about those type of casualties...

[volfram]

To dicrease the number of civilian casualities?
There were no civilians there,only terrorist.

[Ichhabe]

To dicrease the number of civilian casualities?
There were no civilians there,only terrorist.

That was a joke?!?! Wasn't it??? Say it was a joke...

[tony6]

There were no civilians there,only terrorist.
Now that's what I call BULL****.
Buddy-there're always civilians on every war-especially in the urban area (like this one).

[Russian Texan]

There were no civilians there,only terrorist.
Now that's what I call BULL****.
Buddy-there're always civilians on every war-especially in the urban area (like this one).

I agree but in any war civilian casualties are inevidable.

[sergey31]

How ignorant.... Use smart bombs and missiles on Terrorist rebels who don't have any vehicles or aircraft. Maybe they can come up with a smart bomb that when in lands it extracts legs and start walking or running looking for bad guys.... Hmmm, it does sound interesting.

Rule and die by the sword religion made them pay for being what they are and what they did...... Thank God for Russian army for exterminating evil and teaching future genarations lessons.

Hell on Earth for sure it was and could still be.

[Sergei]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

Our less knowledgable western brothers forget that you won't see much news starring into CNN piece of crap.
Every f...ing building in that square was made a firing position and pillboxes were made out of practically every building. Yes, the Russians tried to save everything and rolled their tanks in instead of barraging the city with artillery. It only took some substanstial casualties and burned vehicles to understand that to take out all the pillboxes and entrenced terrorists there is a need for artillery and planes.
Terrorists hid behind the civilians or shoot soldiers in the back and then posed as some civilian don't-know-jack****-never-took-a-rifle type of guy.
The smart civilians left the city before the assault began.

P.S. I am yet to see a cruise missile or a bomb that kills only the desired targets and not everybody in sight where it was dropped.

[Argyll]

Why did the war in Chechnya start?
I seem to recall that the International community,including the USA and the UN condemned the invasion of Chechnya,and called for immediate cesation of hostilities,and a withdrawl of Russian Forces............what changed the stance?was it because the Chechens are Muslims?Which some people categorise all Muslims as terrorists,so that makes it all perfectly acceptable does it?

I find it quite astonishing that Putin had the gall to try and prevent the Invasion of Iraq,whilst conducting a similar offensive in Chechnya!!

No matter,as I'm unfamiliar for the reasons of the wars,I shall reserve judgement on the actions of both sides until I do some more research!

[Undo]

No matter,as I'm unfamiliar for the reasons of the wars,I shall reserve judgement on the actions of both sides until I do some more research!

I think your research will disclose some interesting things, and hopefully once you have done it, you can offer something to the debate that is informed and not just a knee-jerk "the Russians just assume all muslims are bad" or whatever point you were trying to make. That is, unless you do your "research" at kavkaz.org terrorist website. It is modeled after the BBC's website, so you should feel right at home.

ANYWAY...

There is a huge disconnect on this issue between what was initially reported by the western press, particularly in the first war, and what actually took place. Now that Russia is more open about things it is not hard to find information about what has gone on/is going on. Most of it can easily be found on this site.

[sergey31]

I'll give you an example...... What if Mexican rebels somehow organized large rebelion of their own in California (mind you that we do have almost if not more Hispanics here) and tried to separate CA from U.S and then robbed trains that were passing trough, killing others out of hatred, raped women and 10 yearold girls and made 60% profit out of kidnaping people and holding them for ransom...If not paid, executed.
Do as much research as you can, But I do advise you do read "The Koran", All of it and you will see on what this religion is based on and how brainwashed people in violance........ Just look at the world terrorism, 99.8 persent are Islam origin, it does not take much intelegence to see the bigger picture.
Red Cross declared Chechya as hostile place for their operations and withdrew their mission there, not because of Russians but because of Chechen rebels kidnaping several of them and cutting their troats..... Something to think about who are Russians fighting or were fighting there.

[mustamato]

There were no civilians there,only terrorist.
Now that's what I call BULL****.
Buddy-there're always civilians on every war-especially in the urban area (like this one).

I agree but in any war civilian casualties are inevidable.

When Chechen civilians get killed by Russian artillery it´s "inevidable" but
when Russian civilians get killed by a Chechen bomb it´s "terrorism" eh?

[Sergei]

Why did the war in Chechnya start?

It has been discussed here thousands of times. Look up in the other threads concerning Chechnya.



I seem to recall that the International community,including the USA and the UN condemned the invasion of Chechnya,and called for immediate cesation of hostilities,and a withdrawl of Russian Forces............what changed the stance?was it because the Chechens are Muslims?
No, it is because the Russians refused to live in slave pits and be killed on a regular basis by wahabi followers. The breakaway republic turned into one nasty enclave where one could do practically everything forbidden in a civilized society - sell drugs, weapons, trade slaves, kidnap and kill people, prostitution business. Somehow this particular area is not highlighted in the West since Russia is still approached from the old Cold War position by the majority of western media. I don't know why is this attitude but you can see it syphoning in every article about Russia or Ukraine or any other post-Soviet country.



Which some people categorise all Muslims as terrorists,so that makes it all perfectly acceptable does it?
No, moderate Muslims are quite fine, in fact there are so many Tatars (moderate muslims) in Russian forces in Chechnya that some units are full of them. They don't consider the wahabis and radical chechens as their 'brothers of faith".
Chechens never lived by a fair trade, whether farming, mining or cattle-breeding. They think it is a trade of the weak, you can just walk in and talk everything with your fists or guns.
They also thought the Russians were civilized and thus weak and unable to resist their medieval predatory instincts. They were all wrong, the Russians appeared to remember the old days of faithfullness and glory and showed them the door to hell. Guess what, they are respected know
They don't call VDV - "goblins" and general Shamanov, who used to be the head of Russian forces in Chechnya is called "shaman" or devil for nothing. :D



I find it quite astonishing that Putin had the gall to try and prevent the Invasion of Iraq,whilst conducting a similar offensive in Chechnya!!
Chechnya is part of Russian Federation just like the state of Texas of USA. While Iraq is? :roll: .....



No matter,as I'm unfamiliar for the reasons of the wars,I shall reserve judgement on the actions of both sides until I do some more research!
You are still passing judgements around, like in this statement


I find it quite astonishing that Putin had the gall to try and prevent the Invasion of Iraq,whilst conducting a similar offensive in Chechnya!!
yeah, why don't you do some research before passing judegements around.

[ariweiner]

"I'll give you an example...... What if Mexican rebels somehow organized large rebelion of their own in California"

California is not ruled by sadistic savages who send the entire Californian population to forced labor camps in Siberia. The Russians have done this and more. They have virtually exterminated the Chechen population, man woman and child. Russia is a terrorist state. The freedom-loving Afghans kicked the sadists out. I have no doubt that the Chechens can do the same. However the Chechens have realized that it is not really fair that it is only their homeland that is bombed and terrorized and their people killed. Now, Russian sadists will be killed in their own homeland, in Moscow and other Russian cities. Russia better get out of Chechnya and cease their sadistic murderous ways.

Sources: Russian Atrocities 1 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/06/chech0602.htm)
Russian Atrocities 2 (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/russ-atrocities.html)
Russian Atrocities 3 (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/021065447c70f98385256a93005a73dd?OpenDocument)
Russian Atrocities 4 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/10/1031608244460.html)

The list goes on and on and on...

[Sergei]

"I'll give you an example...... What if Mexican rebels somehow organized large rebelion of their own in California"

California is not ruled by sadistic savages who send the entire Californian population to forced labor camps in Siberia. The Russians have done this and more. They have virtually exterminated the Chechen population, man woman and child. Russia is a terrorist state. The freedom-loving Afghans kicked the sadists out. I have no doubt that the Chechens can do the same. However the Chechens have realized that it is not really fair that it is only their homeland that is bombed and terrorized and their people killed. Now, Russian sadists will be killed in their own homeland, in Moscow and other Russian cities. Russia better get out of Chechnya and cease their sadistic murderous ways.

Sources: Russian Atrocities 1 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/06/chech0602.htm)
Russian Atrocities 2 (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/russ-atrocities.html)
Russian Atrocities 3 (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/021065447c70f98385256a93005a73dd?OpenDocument)
Russian Atrocities 4 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/10/1031608244460.html)

The list goes on and on and on...

I wish you to sit for 2 months in a Chechen slave pit without food and defecating under yourself. You will sing a very different tune then, estupido. You bring those lame articles from Eurasia.net and expect people to treat you seriously? What are you, another wahabi follower?

[ariweiner]

I wish you to sit for 2 months in a Chechen slave pit without food and defecating under yourself.
I dont give a damn about Russian sadists living conditions. Their criminal acts: rape, murder and wanton destruction are inexcusable.

You will sing a very different tune then, estupido. You bring those lame articles from Eurasia.net and expect people to treat you seriously? What are you, another wahabi follower?
Why dont you answer the atrocities listed in the articles. You wish it could go away just because you ridicule them. But facts are facts. The Russian criminals will be brought to justice sooner or later.

[sergey31]

Chechen rebels have faild agains Russian army and Russian army special units. They will never grow to the numbers of what they had before.
Russians have won and will stay in Chechnya forever.
Previously J.Stalin did send most of them to Siberia, but do research and find out why....Here I'll make it easier for you, it's because they were fighting on the German side against Russian and were Terrorist even during WW2 against Russian army. They paid once and they paid the secound time, if they don't learn from the lessons they will be exterminated.
O.K... What happen in Moscow was a complete failure on the Terrorist part, none of the bombs went off and the only casualty was from gas which killed 118 people and seved 700 other, if you ask me That is pretty good, no one else would have done it better. Not even Isralies.
And as for 1979-89 Afghan war. Don't even go there....Do your research and stop being influenced by Western Media so much..... During 10 year war, Russians lost only 15,000 soldier....That is really low if you look at Vietnam 6 year war that had 58,000 casulites. Russians withrew from Afghan because of M. Gorbachev and they could still hold the whole country, which is not an easy task to patrol and maintain coutry with only 44th army branch.

[ariweiner]

Chechen rebels have faild agains Russian army and Russian army special units. They will never grow to the numbers of what they had before. Russians have won and will stay in Chechnya forever.
I take issue with this. Russian atrocities listed above in the links have grown to such a tremendous extent that the Chechens are being forced into the ranks of terrorists. This, however, is Russia's own fault. The situation cannot continue for long like this. Chechnya to Russia is a bleeding wound, dozens upon dozens of soldiers being killed every week. The Russians should withdraw. They have not won. I can understand Russia's imperialistic ambition to hold onto as much territory as possible. But this pride is stopping Chechens from gaining their freedom and this is unacceptable. The Chechen rebels and Maskhadov etc will always be there. If they are killed, they will be replaced. This situation is intolerable. The Russians either need to completely withdraw or they need to haul all these criminals into court for some real justice. Not make heroes out of sadistic murderers and rapists such as Budanov and Co.

More Russian atrocities (http://hrw.org/reports/2003/russia0103/#_Toc31432667)

[Argyll]

Why did the war in Chechnya start?

It has been discussed here thousands of times. Look up in the other threads concerning Chechnya.

I will........thanks........does this have the views from both sides of the coin?


I seem to recall that the International community,including the USA and the UN condemned the invasion of Chechnya,and called for immediate cesation of hostilities,and a withdrawl of Russian Forces............what changed the stance?was it because the Chechens are Muslims?
No, it is because the Russians refused to live in slave pits and be killed on a regular basis by wahabi followers. The breakaway republic turned into one nasty enclave where one could do practically everything forbidden in a civilized society - sell drugs, weapons, trade slaves, kidnap and kill people, prostitution business. Somehow this particular area is not highlighted in the West since Russia is still approached from the old Cold War position by the majority of western media. I don't know why is this attitude but you can see it syphoning in every article about Russia or Ukraine or any other post-Soviet country.

You have misinterpreted my Question and the way in which is was phrased,either the UN/USA and the Intnl community condemned it or not,which is it?,as you avoided that,and the 2nd part pertained to the Same people who condemned it,in what changed their views?



Which some people categorise all Muslims as terrorists,so that makes it all perfectly acceptable does it?

This was not directed at the Russians here!!

No, moderate Muslims are quite fine, in fact there are so many Tatars (moderate muslims) in Russian forces in Chechnya that some units are full of them. They don't consider the wahabis and radical chechens as their 'brothers of faith".
Chechens never lived by a fair trade, whether farming, mining or cattle-breeding. They think it is a trade of the weak, you can just walk in and talk everything with your fists or guns.
They also thought the Russians were civilized and thus weak and unable to resist their medieval predatory instincts. They were all wrong, the Russians appeared to remember the old days of faithfullness and glory and showed them the door to hell. Guess what, they are respected know
They don't call VDV - "goblins" and general Shamanov, who used to be the head of Russian forces in Chechnya is called "shaman" or devil for nothing. :D



I find it quite astonishing that Putin had the gall to try and prevent the Invasion of Iraq,whilst conducting a similar offensive in Chechnya!!
Chechnya is part of Russian Federation just like the state of Texas of USA. While Iraq is? :roll: .....

Did Chechnya not declare itself independant?This is why I thought the war started in the 1st place



No matter,as I'm unfamiliar for the reasons of the wars,I shall reserve judgement on the actions of both sides until I do some more research!
You are still passing judgements around, like in this statement

Explain how that statement is judgemental,it means that as I'm unfamiliar with the Politics behind it all,and hence the reasons for the war,I will not judge either sides actions,as some here have already done so!


I find it quite astonishing that Putin had the gall to try and prevent the Invasion of Iraq,whilst conducting a similar offensive in Chechnya!!
yeah, why don't you do some research before passing judegements around.

Either Putin was for the war or against the war in Iraq........don't dodge the issue,that is not a judgement it was a documented fact,that Russia,France and Germany were all against the war in Iraq,perhaps it is you who also needs to do some research.

Just in case you're wondering,I have never posted anything in any of the Russian Posts pertaining to the war in Chechnya,I have never passed judgement on any Russian actions,unlike others who post here,like I said It's one conflict that has never really interested me,as In my view it was an Internal problem that Russia seemed to be handling herself,pretty effectively.
There have been some great posts from the likes of 16OBr SPn,which have been facinating,I just asked some questions and asked for some views........and I can tell by the attitudes in which the replies came that to continue here is a waste of time and effort,as there is a distinct bias evident!!

[sergey31]

It obvious that you want Russians to leave and this and that....But it will never happen, No Russians don't die by the dosens anymore, they elliminated 97% of them. They will never be able to make a stand like they did in 1994-95 or even in 1999. Do you know why? It's because they have no numbers and the # that they had are all killed. Some of them are hiding in Georgia and as soon as they cross back into Chechnya, Guess what? Russian Spetznaz is waiting for them, just like in they spring of 2003 where 120 of them were hunted down and killed like rabits and deer as they desperatly try to flee back....... No mach if they fight someone who has Helicopters and one of the best special forces in the world.
What you want is one thing, but what has happen is tatally diferent...Keep living in fantacy dream world. Things will not change in your favor. Evil will be eliminated, you practice religion by the sword you shall die by the sword, you cut troaths of others, your and your family will be dealt with........ Do you ever wonder what happen to most of the families of the terrorist that took over that Teater in Moscow?

[littlefrench]

Russian method :
At first We shot everykthink, then we thin

[cut]

Russian method :
At first We shot everykthink, then we thin

littlefrench method:
at first I assume without knowing anything, then I shoot my mouth off.

[littlefrench]

Russian method :
At first We shot everykthink, then we thin

littlefrench method:
at first I assume without knowing anything, then I shoot my mouth off.
lol

Ok I whitdraw what I sayed

[hist2004]

I posted this article in another thread, but it seems like it could be used as a reference here.


If the West isn't exactly repeating its Kosovo blunder in Chechnya, it's only because Russia has a nuclear arsenal.

So, instead of bombing Moscow as we blitzed Belgrade, we're standing on the sidelines chanting that the Kremlin is conducting a genocidal war.

The poor Chechens only want to be free — free to pursue their national pastime of kidnapping for ransom, run terrorist training camps, blow up Moscow apartment buildings and spread Islamic revolution to neighboring states.

Here's the Chechen War, round II, in context.

In June, NATO turned Kosovo over to our narco-terrorist allies in the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Several weeks later, fighting erupted in the Russian republic of Dagestan. Coincidence?

Muslim guerrillas from Chechnya invaded with the announced intention of establishing an Islamic state. The Dagestanis — Muslims who would rather not have the equivalent of Afghanistan's Taliban regime forced on them — resisted. The Chechens destroyed villages, murdered men in front of their families and displaced more than 32,000.

Russia sent in the troops to meet the menace. In retaliation, a series of explosions rocked Moscow and other Russian cities in September, killing more than 300 people. How would America react if terrorists from Mexico started blowing up apartment buildings in Los Angeles?

At this point, the government of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin decided enough was enough and took the war to its source.

Moscow initially lost control of Chechnya in 1996, when Islamic separatists fought it to a draw. Thereafter, what passed for a government in Grozny has proved incapable of keeping order.

In the past three years, militant bands have taken more than 1,000 hostages. Russians and foreigners are seized and tortured. (A 13-year-old Russian girl had two fingers cut off.). Videotapes of the ordeals are sent to relatives with ransom demands. The money raised finances Holy War throughout the Caucasus.

International Islam advances on many fronts — Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, the Kashmir and the West Bank. These campaigns are connected and coordinated.

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi architect of embassy explosions who also supported the KLA, has ties to Chechnya via Khattab, the Jordanian-born co-commander of the Dagestan incursion.

Yossef Bodansky, director of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," notes that Khattab has been a bin Laden protege since 1987.

In 1994, the Saudi sent Khattab to Tajikistan to aid Islamic revolution there, then transferred him to Chechnya in 1995.

Bodansky says forensic tests show the explosive devices in the Moscow bombings are similar to those used to blow up U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania last year.

While we fretted about the terrorist mastermind attacking America on New Year's, the Clinton administration continued to slam Russia for using excessive force against bin Laden's Chechen allies.

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger urged Moscow to "deal with it (terrorism) within the constitutional framework." How? By inviting the terrorists to a parliamentary debate? Resolved: That bombings and torture aren't nice.

Russian forces in Chechnya are waging a brutal war against brutal people. It's true, there have been incidents of indiscriminate shelling and looting.

What the '60s antiwar activists who run the Clinton White House fail to understand is that there will always be moral lapses in a counterinsurgency effort. (There were in Vietnam.) But, just as America fought for civilization in Southeast Asia, Russia is doing the West's work in the Caucasus.

Our miscalculation in Chechnya is consistent with a foreign policy that sees the Kosovo Liberation Army as heroes, the Serbs as a threat to European stability, China as a "a strategic ally" and Israel as the party which must sacrifice its security as the price of Middle East peace.

If providing moral support for Islamic revolution in the Caucasus weren't enough, by condemning Moscow's Chechen offensive, we are signaling Russia that, even after the Cold War, we are still its enemy and driving it into the arms of Beijing. Dumb and dumber.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Argyll]

Excatly what I was looking for Hist2004,thank you!

[Russian Texan]

Chechen rebels have faild agains Russian army and Russian army special units. They will never grow to the numbers of what they had before. Russians have won and will stay in Chechnya forever.
I take issue with this. Russian atrocities listed above in the links have grown to such a tremendous extent that the Chechens are being forced into the ranks of terrorists. This, however, is Russia's own fault. The situation cannot continue for long like this. Chechnya to Russia is a bleeding wound, dozens upon dozens of soldiers being killed every week. The Russians should withdraw. They have not won. I can understand Russia's imperialistic ambition to hold onto as much territory as possible. But this pride is stopping Chechens from gaining their freedom and this is unacceptable. The Chechen rebels and Maskhadov etc will always be there. If they are killed, they will be replaced. This situation is intolerable. The Russians either need to completely withdraw or they need to haul all these criminals into court for some real justice. Not make heroes out of sadistic murderers and rapists such as Budanov and Co.

More Russian atrocities (http://hrw.org/reports/2003/russia0103/#_Toc31432667)

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Dude, what are you smoking? :lol:

Do you really think that anyone who has a clue about that conflict or military in general cares about that "human rights watch crap"? :roll:

In the end it doesn't matter what you or other human rights morons think, Chechens had their butts kicked and if they start spinning out of control again, guess what.... more artillery barages will be coming their way, simple like that :)
And no one is going to do anything about it :)
Sure people like you will be screaming "bloody murder" but is it really going to change anything....?

BTW are you in Chechnya right now?
No?
Why not?
Why not to go help poor Chechen freedom fighters?
What, no balls? I thought so...

And how come "freedom fighters" don't have support of general population anymore?

To all the westerners
Before you start passing judjement, I strongly suggest you go and visit any of the chechen or any other muslim forums, you will find lots of food for thought....
Chechens HATE anyone who is not of their religion or views, they consider russians alcoholics, europeans - weak sheep, americans are dumb, weak and toxic(culture) and pure evil in general.
So while you all are protecting them, they dream about turning you into slaves and wiping out anything that is not sanctioned by "Allah".

[volfram]

To dicrease the number of civilian casualities?
There were no civilians there,only terrorist.

That was a joke?!?! Wasn't it??? Say it was a joke...
It was no joke ,it was sarcasm.

[RomanS]

Im about to let my DOGS OUT GOD DAMN IT

Hey Chechen **** sukin ****s, listen to this.

Untill you show me a single video clip with evidence of a Russian soldier killing 50,000 civilians - or how about just one civilian. All I see are the videos of the Chechen ****s executing, and killing their own people on the tapes.

If you can't show me a video with Russians killing civilians - I STRONGLY recomend shutting the fak up.

So I'm waiting..........................

[hank]

Permi - remember that pm? The post you just made is why.

hank

[garyfanclub]

Don't assume all Westerns are against you guys. I'm Pro-Russia here, these Chechens are ****ing animals, they woke the sleeping bear and now they're getting what they deserve.

God Speed and Good Hunting Russia.

[RomanS]

Permi - remember that pm? The post you just made is why.

hank

I see you picked YOUR SIDE!

[RomanS]

Don't assume all Westerns are against you guys. I'm Pro-Russia here, these Chechens are f*** animals, they woke the sleeping bear and now they're getting what they deserve.

God Speed and Good Hunting Russia.

Great post my man


Woke the bear, and now crying that they are bleeding. auwww little babies

well ****, play with fire, you gonna get burned. Lessons for others.

Come with the sword - Die by the sword

[hank]

pick sides? its not about sides - its about the fact that you always post these same tired insults. I could give 2 s---ts about you or chechnya or grozny or any of that crap. Some day you will realize that they are just baiting you, until then the rest of us at milphotos will have to read this garbage.

hank

[RomanS]

pick sides? its not about sides - its about the fact that you always post these same tired insults. I could give 2 s---ts about you or chechnya or grozny or any of that crap. Some day you will realize that they are just baiting you, until then the rest of us at milphotos will have to read this garbage.

hank
double post

[RomanS]

pick sides? its not about sides - its about the fact that you always post these same tired insults. I could give 2 s---ts about you or chechnya or grozny or any of that crap. Some day you will realize that they are just baiting you, until then the rest of us at milphotos will have to read this garbage.

hank

Simple solution

Don't give a **** about Chechnya me or Grozny?

Why are you replying, looking, readin this?

You know hank, I never did anything to you, so I too don't give a flying **** about you.

[hank]

well then post that bulls--t somewhere else you moron. Its old, just really old.

hank

[RomanS]

well then post that bulls--t somewhere else you moron. Its old, just really old.

hank

I didnt start this thread you ****weed, neither did I start this

"Ok make it 50.000 then, makes it acceptable immediately?"

"Good job russia...

Maybe next time you use some intelligent/smart bombs/rockets and don't just shoot down the whole country."

"I'll give you an example...... What if Mexican rebels somehow organized large rebelion of their own in California"

California is not ruled by sadistic savages who send the entire Californian population to forced labor camps in Siberia. The Russians have done this and more. They have virtually exterminated the Chechen population, man woman and child. Russia is a terrorist state. The freedom-loving Afghans kicked the sadists out. I have no doubt that the Chechens can do the same. However the Chechens have realized that it is not really fair that it is only their homeland that is bombed and terrorized and their people killed. Now, Russian sadists will be killed in their own homeland, in Moscow and other Russian cities. Russia better get out of Chechnya and cease their sadistic murderous ways.

Sources: Russian Atrocities 1
Russian Atrocities 2
Russian Atrocities 3
Russian Atrocities 4

The list goes on and on and on...

I dont give a damn about Russian sadists living conditions. Their criminal acts: rape, murder and wanton destruction are inexcusable.

I take issue with this. Russian atrocities listed above in the links have grown to such a tremendous extent that the Chechens are being forced into the ranks of terrorists. This, however, is Russia's own fault. The situation cannot continue for long like this. Chechnya to Russia is a bleeding wound, dozens upon dozens of soldiers being killed every week. The Russians should withdraw. They have not won. I can understand Russia's imperialistic ambition to hold onto as much territory as possible. But this pride is stopping Chechens from gaining their freedom and this is unacceptable. The Chechen rebels and Maskhadov etc will always be there. If they are killed, they will be replaced. This situation is intolerable. The Russians either need to completely withdraw or they need to haul all these criminals into court for some real justice. Not make heroes out of sadistic murderers and rapists such as Budanov and Co.





NOW ,

Why don't you go **** off, I don't see you contributing photos or any other valuable piece of interest to this website.

And again, if you don't care, What the hell are you doing reading this? Can't resist, cant ya?

[hank]

these stupid ass chechnya debates are all the same

russians killed chechnyans

yes they did

no they did not

uh-huh!

nuh-huh!

Enthralling, really. Don't stop.

hank

[RomanS]

these stupid ass chechnya debates are all the same

russians killed chechnyans

yes they did

no they did not

uh-huh!

nuh-huh!

Enthralling, really. Don't stop.

hank


see, you're still here.

[Cambridge Rabbit]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

Looks like Detroit.

[Elmo]

Everybody just loves The Great Russian Bear and her subtle ways.

What is really striking is the amount of ignorance among the russian populace based on my own discussions with wealthy, priviliged Moscowers. There is a war going on, yet they (the ones I spoke to) only saw the inhuman terrorists, which the administration is feeding to them.

This journalism student actually said: "oh my god, it's terrible, these bombs in the apartment blocks and everything! Oh, I don't want to hear about Chechnya..."

Yeah, a real Soviet Citizen. Don't question, keep our mouth shut and stay out of trouble.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Everyone has opinions as they are like assholes and everyones got one. Wether there opinion is informed is a different thing.

Russia has been many times attacked and prevoked by the Chechens, Russians and Chechens dont exactly mix well. Chechens engaging in terrorist attacks that were killing Russian citizens, what do you expect the country to do?

This has happened many times around the world, for example Palestinian terrorists attacking Jewish settlements/civillians. Al-Queda attacking the United States, you dont see people complaining that US and Israel are defending themselves.

I'm not saying the war in Chechnya is pretty, its been far from it. Theres been alot of destruction, and unfortuneatly innocent people get caught in the crossfire. It happens with any war, considering the area has been threw war twice within a matter of a couple years of course the landscape isnt exactly pretty (you can find similar pictures from Afghanistan and other countrys around the world and from other conflicts).

All Chechens arnt terrorists, just like all Afghans arnt Taliban/Al-Queda and all Iraqi's arnt Feedayeen Saddam or "Insurgents". Its unfortuneate what the acts of some can do to the innocent.

But the fact remains war isnt pretty, people die, lives go on, cities can be re-built. What matters is if people learn from the past so situations like this dont need to be repeated.

Just some thoughts on the way I see it....
the bastardchild

[anonymous individual]

hank and permi are so funny. They should do stand up comedy together.

[hank]

permi offered in his pm - but I am a little shy so I said no. Maybe once we get to know each other a little better. take my wife, please. badumching!

hank

[RomanS]

I take her everywhere, but she manages to find her way back home.

[SeanAshi]

Terrorists hid behind the civilians or shoot soldiers in the back and then posed as some civilian don't-know-jack****-never-took-a-rifle type of guy. Why is it when we Americans use that excuse Russians don't accept it?, although I do not participate in other military forums, I do read them, and time and time again I've read Russians accusing America of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kabul was in bad shape when we got there, Afghan civil war, and Soviet occupation is to blame, Baghdad is in no where near the chaos of Grozny, The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.

[RomanS]

Terrorists hid behind the civilians or shoot soldiers in the back and then posed as some civilian don't-know-jack****-never-took-a-rifle type of guy. Why is it when we Americans use that excuse Russians don't accept it?, although I do not participate in other military forums, I do read them, and time and time again I've read Russians accusing America of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kabul was in bad shape when we got there, Afghan civil war, and Soviet occupation is to blame, Baghdad is in no where near the chaos of Grozny, The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.

Question for you than.

Why did US declared Chechen rebels as terrorists after 9-11?

How did that happen? During Clinton's they were brave freedom fighters, a heroic example to all the little nations.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Terrorists hid behind the civilians or shoot soldiers in the back and then posed as some civilian don't-know-jack****-never-took-a-rifle type of guy. Why is it when we Americans use that excuse Russians don't accept it?, although I do not participate in other military forums, I do read them, and time and time again I've read Russians accusing America of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kabul was in bad shape when we got there, Afghan civil war, and Soviet occupation is to blame, Baghdad is in no where near the chaos of Grozny, The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.
Those are really dumb russians, who are probably 13-14 years old.

[Groove]

You kidding, what's to get upset about?
If anything, I am proud of the power and great job done by Russian artillery
Here you go enjoy some Grad and Smerch vids

I understand the whiping of Grozny but this comment is full BS. Would you like to see the Grad and Smerch leveling your city ? Yes ? :roll:

Groove

[Groove]

Btw. Im in a FULL AGREE about the "future" of any MF RADICAL MUSLIM in the world. Maybe i critize russia often here but on this one point im behind russia.

I hope this radicals are extincted from earth one day !

Groove

Read carefully : Im speaking about RADICAL Muslims, i have enough friends which are muslim...

[SR15]

Terrorists hid behind the civilians or shoot soldiers in the back and then posed as some civilian don't-know-jack****-never-took-a-rifle type of guy. Why is it when we Americans use that excuse Russians don't accept it?, although I do not participate in other military forums, I do read them, and time and time again I've read Russians accusing America of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kabul was in bad shape when we got there, Afghan civil war, and Soviet occupation is to blame, Baghdad is in no where near the chaos of Grozny, The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.

Question for you than.

Why did US declared Chechen rebels as terrorists after 9-11?

How did that happen? During Clinton's they were brave freedom fighters, a heroic example to all the little nations.

because Clinton is damn clown, who didnt do ****. just like over democrates.

if you want to stop terrorism , you have to figth.
its not going away by itself.

[RomanS]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

I've been sitting here thinking about your statement.

Sean, I might be stupid or un-educated in the "Hiding thousands of dead bodies 101", but could you explain to me, and help me to understand something?

How do you hide, and burry One hundred fifty thousand (150,000) of dead boddies?

Taken your numbers my math tells me that in Grozny 25,000 people die each year.
2083 each month
And 69 per day

:(

[sergey31]

This is it.....
Most of you might not agree but this is How it is.
There is a new Crusade, When people say radical Muslims they are ignarant and do not understand Islam.... They (true muslims) just do and follow what is told and written in "The Koran". If you read it and research it this is what it comes down to....
Islam religion is based on conqering and conqest. Their goal is to spread Islam all over the world and kill anyone who does not accept Alah or pay taxes to them.... It talks in the Koran on how to kill Christians, Jews and anyone one else who is their way -ifadels.

The Muslim religion is based on violance and rulle by the sword.
If you disagree, PLEASE I don't want to hear from you unless you research it properly.
It's a loosing battle for them and they realize this and resort to terrorism since they can't wage war against Superpower nations, and yes Superpower Nations are based on Christianity which they cannot stand. Americans made a mistake in helping them durring Russian-Afghan war and have paid a price for it.
America, Russia, England and Israel are fighting them until they have to. and they will never rise up like they once did......
Islam is large but not powerful as they want to be- They are on the loosing side, just need to realize that and stop all this BS nonsense.

[Kilgor]

Some of us westerns do support the russian cause.

Yes there is civilian casualties, but hey.. thats war.

Muslim extremism must be destroyed.
It is totally unacceptable in this day and age to have sharia law.

Anyone who believes in it should be exterminated like dogs.

[SeanAshi]

During Clinton's they were brave freedom fighters, a heroic example to all the little nations.
Clinton is a ****ing moron, and there is a saying if bin Laden was a peice of ass Clinton would have nailed him. The point of the thread was to counter the Russian claims of war crimes by Americans in Iraq, and Afghanistan. And I was curious to see how Russians would react if I were to post pictures of Grozny and reaction was as I thought it would be, you deny it. And we deny it like Russians deny warcrimes in Chechnya, there is no doubt civilians have been killed on both sides, they are never the intended target and its frustraiting that terrorist hide behind women and children. I saw parts of videos of chechen terrorist executing Russians soldiers and worse thing I have ever seen in my life, I only saw seconds that was to much so I can understand why Russian wants to hit back hard, but we are fighting the same thing, Islamic extremist.

[wholagun]

Why don't you guys like Clinton? What you guys assume that a Republican would've actually killed bin laden when they had the chance? Don't assume that a repbublican would some how have prevented 9/11. US was never as prosperous as it was under Clinton. Besides most Americans would disagree with people on this fourm about Clinton. I said it before that Clinton was the only prez to gain support thoughout his time in office, no other prez has done that. Clinton came in with support somewhere in 50s and left with 70s, this despire the Monica scandal. "its the economy stuipid"

[Ratamacue]

Why don't you guys like Clinton? What you guys assume that a Republican would've actually killed bin laden when they had the chance? Don't assume that a repbublican would some how have prevented 9/11. US was never as prosperous as it was under Clinton. Besides most Americans would disagree with people on this fourm about Clinton. I said it before that Clinton was the only prez to gain support thoughout his time in office, no other prez has done that. Clinton came in with support somewhere in 50s and left with 70s, this despire the Monica scandal. "its the economy stuipid"

I have no respect for a President who willingly and knowingly lies under oath.

[radon]

It was still a stupid personal matter. I wouldnt care if the president goes to a pimp every friday , if he still does his job good. :roll: Why was that Levinsky thing so important.

And the excuses he sometimes gave were cheap : " I didnt inhale" :cantbeli:

[PsihoKeke]

Bush is at least smart enoug, not to take oath :lol: .

[Kilgor]

I have no respect for a President who willingly and knowingly lies under oath.


Exactly.. I dont care if it was just a blowjob, or if he didnt inhale, or swallow.. or what the hell ever..

Lied under oath....

[Kilgor]

oops
duplicate

[wholagun]

I have no respect for a President who willingly and knowingly lies under oath.

what about exageration of intelligence and going to war on possibly false pretenses, do you respect that?

[joroPAZ]

Kilgor Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:41 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of us westerns do support the russian cause.

Yes there is civilian casualties, but hey.. thats war.

Muslim extremism must be destroyed.
It is totally unacceptable in this day and age to have sharia law.

Anyone who believes in it should be exterminated like dogs.

I second this opinion sir,even though I'm from E.Europe.I'm with you guys
100%.The Islamist are on the rise everywhere.The civilized world must
understand where Its priority lies.It's really simple:
1.Learn from the mistakes-helping( KLA in Kosovo,which deals in drugs
and arms traffic;Saddam,arming him;talibans and OBL-giving them
money and arms;chechens terorists-moral suport.
2.Do not do it again.
At least our russian friends have the guts to do something about it.Inoccent are killed?Yes,and it's tragic.But,is there really a way around it
when you fights in towns?
By the way,nice forum...and hallo everybody p-)
And no,I'm not russian,nor a kommunist ;)

[Kingpin]

ATTENTION! I think we should go through terms clarification process

1. We all should remember that there was 1st and 2nd Chechen wars. When discussing some matters always keep in mind that they went in completely diffefrent scenarios in most aspects.

2. Russian atrocities vs Chechen atrocities. Always keep in mind that tensions USA vs Iraq or USA vs Afganistan have no more than 20 y/o history while Russian tensions with Chechens have more 300 years background. Both sides commited a lot of atrocities to each other during these centuries. And i'm 100% sure that Chechens did it first due to their traditions of enslaving and robbing other nations. They did it to slavic people settled on plains near Chechen native mountains all this time.

3. Civilians.
1st war - nobody in Moscow expected such heavy fights in Grozny in 1995 so civilians was literally catched in crossfire. There was many civilians deaths BUT most of civilians killed wasn't Chechens. Actually mostly died RUSSIAN civilians because Chechens warned each other and in general their civilians left Grozny before battle.
2nd war - army spent almost two weeks around Grozny while sending warnings to residents to leave city before storming begins. So you can't blame army for civilians deaths during 2nd Grozny storming. Army doesn't have billions dollars to spent them on state-of the-art modern equipment. So they did their job with good old conventional weapons.

4. Stalin times.
Stalin was Georgian (his real last name Dzhugashvili, like real last name of Lenin was Uliyanov). Most Bolshevik's bosses was Jews. How can you blame Russian nation for what their dictators did? :)
Anyway chechens was displaced to Kazakhstan (not in Siberia, idiot) very accurately without any atrocities in the same conditions in which army units moved around the country. If Chechens loosers didn't like such conditions and prefer luxury i don't care. Anyway they supported Nazi and should be punished for this.

5. Modern times.
The most notorious mafia gangs during and after fall of Soviet Union was Chechen gangs. They earn HUGE amount of money through their crimes, which include ransoms for hostages (they took a lot of hostages in 1992-1994 years), arms and drugs trading, different criminal financial affairs. These money was later transefered in Chechnya to fuel war against Russia. That was exactly what hist2004 wrote about: while defending their freedom they (Chechens) defending their freedom to enslave and rob other nations.
2nd Chechen in this aspect different. There still people who wanted independence (no matter noble they was or criminal) but muslim extremists took power in most regions of Chechnya, created terrorists training camps and begun preparations for establishing on Caucasus sharia ruled empire.

[wholagun]

I'm with you guys
100%.The Islamist are on the rise everywhere.The civilized world must
understand where Its priority lies.It's really simple:


Civilized, wow dude your idea of the world is scewed big time. Can you defend or elaberate on what you mean by civilized?

Can civilized people do the stuff that happened in Poland in the late 1940s where millions of Jews and others lost thier lives? Europe and North America have had thier fair share of body war - the boodiest and you call that civilized?

[joroPAZ]

Are you trying to deny the fact that Russia is part of the civilized world?
And what the the 2nd world war has to do with the situation in Chechnia?

[GazB]

Why is it when we Americans use that excuse Russians don't accept it?

Hmmm, perhaps half a world away from your own country trying to ensure a good supply of oil and a country putting down an insurrection on its own territory are not that comparable.

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam is about as pro Al qada as Reagan was a of communism. Al Qada supported the Kurdish rebels that Saddam gassed for example.


and time and time again I've read Russians accusing America of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan,

Bad things happen in war zones. That is why war zones are considered dangerous places to be.

The Russians didn't start the wars in Chechnia... they reacted to the actions of some extremists inside an area they governed.


Kabul was in bad shape when we got there, Afghan civil war, and Soviet occupation is to blame, Baghdad is in no where near the chaos of Grozny, The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.

Hang on the Russians left Afghanistan over ten years before the Americans officially got there. Afghanistan has been bathing in the peace and prosperity of the wonderful regime that CIA funding through the Pakistani secret service provided via the Taleban. Surely they rebuilt everything in that time... after spending all that money on weapons and equipment for the so called freedom fighters there surely the defender of word democracy could spare a little money to help rebuild?

Actually earlier in the year Grozny had power and water and many other services that Bagdad didn't have.


The United States and Russia are fighting the same war on terrorism.

Hahahahahaha... then why is the US building oil pipelines through Afghanistan and Georgia... would it be to bypass Russia and Iran to get Caspian Sea oil?
Pervious support for the Chechens was largely fuelled by the potential oil wealth in the region and you can bet that interest wasn't in Russia's favour.


I understand the whiping of Grozny but this comment is full BS. Would you like to see the Grad and Smerch leveling your city ? Yes ?

The first time they went in to Grozny they went on top of tanks and vehicles. If the whole city had not been turned into a huge tank trap with ambush points and barricades then the artillery would not have been used. What the Chechens did to those armoured units is why the city was leveled... and for good reason.


And I was curious to see how Russians would react if I were to post pictures of Grozny and reaction was as I thought it would be, you deny it.

but when americans deny it they are telling the truth because they are good and civilised. When the Ruskies deny it, they are commie liars that have a history of evil deeds... ignoring the fact that most of the evil deeds were purpetrated by the Russian leaders on the Russian people of course.


It was still a stupid personal matter. I wouldnt care if the president goes to a pimp every friday , if he still does his job good. Why was that Levinsky thing so important.

If he was the head of IBM he would have been fired. If he can lie about this and is proved to have lied what sort of credibility has he got? If he signs an arms limitations treaty is he lying then too?


And the excuses he sometimes gave were cheap : " I didnt inhale"

Isn't memory loss a symptom of drug use?


what about exageration of intelligence and going to war on possibly false pretenses, do you respect that?


Well the fact that the Iraqis will have to pump a lot of oil to rebuild their country means that even if the US leaves right now the price of oil will stay low for quite some time... "its about the economy stupid!"

[wholagun]

Are you trying to deny the fact that Russia is part of the civilized world?
And what the the 2nd world war has to do with the situation in Chechnia?

Where in my post did I mention anything about Russia? Your putting words in my mouth by saying that I said that Russia is not cilivized.

I wrote/asked:

. Can you define or elaberate on what you mean by civilized?


I included Holocust to prove that Europeans are not civilized as you claimed they are

welcome BTW. what E.Europe country are you from?

[Ichhabe]

ATTENTION! I think we should go through terms clarification process

1. We all should remember that there was 1st and 2nd Chechen wars. When discussing some matters always keep in mind that they went in completely diffefrent scenarios in most aspects.

2. Russian atrocities vs Chechen atrocities. Always keep in mind that tensions USA vs Iraq or USA vs Afganistan have no more than 20 y/o history while Russian tensions with Chechens have more 300 years background. Both sides commited a lot of atrocities to each other during these centuries. And i'm 100% sure that Chechens did it first due to their traditions of enslaving and robbing other nations. They did it to slavic people settled on plains near Chechen native mountains all this time.

3. Civilians.
1st war - nobody in Moscow expected such heavy fights in Grozny in 1995 so civilians was literally catched in crossfire. There was many civilians deaths BUT most of civilians killed wasn't Chechens. Actually mostly died RUSSIAN civilians because Chechens warned each other and in general their civilians left Grozny before battle.
2nd war - army spent almost two weeks around Grozny while sending warnings to residents to leave city before storming begins. So you can't blame army for civilians deaths during 2nd Grozny storming. Army doesn't have billions dollars to spent them on state-of the-art modern equipment. So they did their job with good old conventional weapons.

4. Stalin times.
Stalin was Georgian (his real last name Dzhugashvili, like real last name of Lenin was Uliyanov). Most Bolshevik's bosses was Jews. How can you blame Russian nation for what their dictators did? :)
Anyway chechens was displaced to Kazakhstan (not in Siberia, idiot) very accurately without any atrocities in the same conditions in which army units moved around the country. If Chechens loosers didn't like such conditions and prefer luxury i don't care. Anyway they supported Nazi and should be punished for this.

5. Modern times.
The most notorious mafia gangs during and after fall of Soviet Union was Chechen gangs. They earn HUGE amount of money through their crimes, which include ransoms for hostages (they took a lot of hostages in 1992-1994 years), arms and drugs trading, different criminal financial affairs. These money was later transefered in Chechnya to fuel war against Russia. That was exactly what hist2004 wrote about: while defending their freedom they (Chechens) defending their freedom to enslave and rob other nations.
2nd Chechen in this aspect different. There still people who wanted independence (no matter noble they was or criminal) but muslim extremists took power in most regions of Chechnya, created terrorists training camps and begun preparations for establishing on Caucasus sharia ruled empire.


Now here we have good info given in a good manner.

The reason you Russian guys get so much pepper sometimes is due to the harsh language that permiiskoo(see, I don't have respect for that guy so I don't care if I spelled his nick right or wrong.)


Untill now I have hidden in the closet on the stance on the Russian/Chechyan "conflict".
I have had my opinion on that war since 1995. I am of course pro-Russian, but the problem is that I "feel" that the Russians could have solved the problem on Chechnya a little better. (But hey?!?! Who am I to know? This conflict could for all we care taken its place at the back of the moon.)

[Kingpin]

My definition of western definition of "been civilized":
Anyone who accept views and ways of anglo-saxxons and provide them with all possible support can be called "civilized". :) :) :)

That's why many in Europe in US call Russians - barbarians. We ****ed anglo-saxxons (Western European) civilisations in ass all the time :) :)

[wholagun]

That's why many in Europe in US call Russians - barbarians. We f*** anglo-saxxons (Western European) civilisations in ass all the time

Phew - thank God im Slavic then eh.. :)
Ok I'v gotten wwwaaayyy off topic so...yeah.. back on topic with me.

[DE_Six]

Hmmm, perhaps half a world away from your own country trying to ensure a good supply of oil and a country putting down an insurrection on its own territory are not that comparable.

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam is about as pro Al qada as Reagan was a of communism. Al Qada supported the Kurdish rebels that Saddam gassed for example.


Just saying, but what you feel is the sole motive behind the war in Iraq (oil) is your own perception, nothing more. Therefore, if the next person's perception of Chechnya is that Russia is waging an unjust war there, you can't call foul on his opinion if you want yours to be respected. His perception, your perception, it goes both ways. Some people could claim that Russia's war in Chechnya is not about terrorism and purely about imposing its authority to a secessionist nation, yet it would have no less nor no more value than your take on the war in Iraq.

By the way, the Kurds' main problem since 1993 and until OIF was a group named Ansar Al-Islam, a group affiliated to Al-Qaeda (and by proxy to cells operating in Chechnya). Ansar Al-Islam was conducting guerrilla against the Kurds under the umbrella of...Iraqi artillery! And this is documented. AQ supporting the Kurds? If you have anything, please share it with us.

Just my .02$

[joroPAZ]

Dude,I think your little game of Q and A is boring the s...t out
of me.And let's spare the nerves of the rest of the people here.I've
never postet anything about any world war,jews or Poland.If you
think that I don't know what is civilized and what not,let's be that way.
Spare your bullets.The topic on this tread is Grozni.
And because I think you're from Poland,let me tell you that your
country is perfectly civilized.Happy?? ;)

[wholagun]

Dude,I think your little game of Q and A is boring the s...t out
of me.And let's spare the nerves of the rest of the people here.I've
never postet anything about any world war,jews or Poland.If you
think that I don't know what is civilized and what not,let's be that way.
Spare your bullets.The topic on this tread is Grozni.
And because I think you're from Poland,let me tell you that your
country is perfectly civilized.Happy?? ;)

wow, so many things I could say about what you just wrote :cantbeli: . Ah i see you noticed Im Polish and for being civilized why thank you, although many would disaggree with you in the West. Like I said I took it off topic and I don't like to do that, so i will end on this note, and go back on topic.

[joroPAZ]

Your sarcasm doesn't work on me.Move on...

[Sergei]

It seems to me that the majority of the western people here take their information about Chechen war from kavkaz.org (morgue) site. :bash:

Ichhabe brought the suggestion that this conflict could be solved by Russia somehow better. Ok, let's listen to your suggestions then.
The Russians waited patiently for all 1992, 1993, and majority of 1994 to see the lawless republic murder chechen and russian civilians in Grozny and all-around Chechnya for not sharing radical muslim dogmas. I applaud their patience and strength to not start bombing them right there and then.
But then the Chechens moved to neighboring all-Russian provinces like Krasnodar and Stavropol regions and started kidnapping people for ransom. If the ransom wasn't paid, the chechens would send all kinds of cut-off body parts to the relative of the victim. Now, all kinds of alarming calls started to syphon through to drunk f''' Eltsin and even no matter how drunk he was he and his generals realised that Chechnya is turning into one nasty lawless region with medieval sharia laws.
That was before 1st Chechen war.

After it ended in 1996, Russia was presurred by the west to quite bringing law and order to Chechnya because of Eltsin, the drunk pussy.

Chechnya enjoyed lawless freedom from 1996 til 1999 when Basaev and Hattab decided its time to expand their drugged, kidnapping and lawless empire and so they attacked the Russian Federation region of Dagestan killing civilians without mercy.

Now, the golden question to Ichhabe would be, what would you've done better then the Russians? Just surrendered and said, ok muslims you won, take me to the slave pit and **** on my head? Or take my wife and rape her any time you want? Or get our teens on drugs, they love drugs, bring them some more?

Having said that, I it is easy for you to sit comfortably atop Europe there in Norway surrounded by happy Swedes and Danes and smoking you pipe. If you have had such neighbors as chechens I am damn sure you would arm all your men to the last one to battle that incursion.

[Ichhabe]

Sergei said:


It seems to me that the majority of the western people here take their information about Chechen war from kavkaz.org (morgue) site

Never been to that site, and won't go there either.


Ichhabe brought the suggestion that this conflict could be solved by Russia somehow better. Ok, let's listen to your suggestions then.

I did not say that I had suggestions. I said that I "felt" that the Russians could have handled it better back in 1995.
Now it is to late.


Now, the golden question to Ichhabe would be, what would you've done better then the Russians?

Actually I do not know. The situation went out of controle years ago.
I remember a clip on the News were some Chechnyan rebels debated on the issue of Islam. Hell, they even didn't know if their were shiits or sunni's.(That was back in 95.)


Having said that, I it is easy for you to sit comfortably atop Europe there in Norway surrounded by happy Swedes and Danes and smoking you pipe.

That is true. I sit here comfortably in my chair. And it seems like I'm going to sit here a little further too.
But it is not my fault that I am surrounded by happy people in happy countries. But I am glad that I live in a peacefull country up in the corner of Europe. :)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

It seems to me that the majority of the western people here take their information about Chechen war from kavkaz.org (morgue) site.

If anyone thinks theres any truth to the information on that website they should lay off the pipe.

[Sergei]

This week in Chechnya spetsnaz eliminated two mercenaries citizens of Turkey
Hankala, Feb. 6, 2004 /ITAR-TASS/.

This week in Chechnya two chechen mercenaries-citizens of Turkey were killed in action. Both cases happened near the village of Ersenoy(Vedeno district/, where the gang of Aslan Asambaev is operating.

As reported by FSB, operatives of military police and FSB operatives eliminated a fighter. "The dead possessed an assault rifle and ammo, as well as the passport of the citizen of Turkey on the name of Nadik Vakhid-Abas-Agly - they reported in the press center.- Now we are cheching if he has been involved into committed earlier terrorist crimes".

The day before the Information department of the president of Russian Federation reported the elimination of one more Turk-mercenary:

"On February 2, the group of spetsnaz recon unit near the village of Ersenoy killed in a firefight a fighter". When looked upon the body they found the passport of the citizen of Turkey on the name of Zia Peche, 1976 year of birth, the native of the city Rize. "From the stamps in the passport it is clear that the mercenary has spent the last 2 years in Chechnya", - reported by the Department.

The main channels for the financing of chechen terrorists and foreign mercenaries come from the countries of Persian Gulf and Turkey, reported a high source in the Ministry of Defence.

"We kill armed citizens of Turkey on the territory of Chechnya, - underlined the source. - The Turkish state, which is a part of NATO, does not act in an according way to stop the infiltration of fighters into Russia, which is a partner of NATO and takes an active part in the international anti-terror coalition".

For example, the passport of Zia Peche had visas of Pakistan for 1 month where the aim of travelling was set as tourism. Moreover the passport bore two Georgian visas given on May 25, 2000 and May 27, 2001.

As earlier reported by the aid of the president of RF Sergei Yastrzhembsky, on November 23, 2003 near the chechen village of Sergen-Urt a large force of chechen fighters was destroyed, among them two mercs with passports from Turkey, one from Algeria and one citizen of Germany. Their passports also bore Georgian visas.

End of article

So much for the freedom-loving chechens. All I see are fu***g mercs from Turkey, Algeria, Pakistan and even Germany. No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians. Too bad they still haven't figured that they don't call Spetsnaz badass for nothing.
If I have the time I will find the photos of some negroes fighting for Chechens, now those guys got really lost. The photos could be graphic since Spetsnaz know their business and some negroes have their skulls crushed with bullets, so if you don't want to see those I will not post them.

[Ichhabe]

Sergei said:


No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians.

If there are someone that should go easy on the pipe, it would be you. rofl

[Kingpin]

Sergei said:


No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians.

If there are someone that should go easy on the pipe, it would be you. rofl

Don't know about europussies and pipe but Turkey and UK SpecOps operatives was in insurgent training camps. Turkey men provided training for bandits. UK men provided communications and satellite intelligence.

That was told many times by many sources including FSB and army officials

[Sergei]

This is what happens to European and other western folks who believe in freedom-loving chechens:

A decapitated body of English engineer is recovered by Spetsnaz in Chechnya after the heads of 3 English and 1 New Zealand engineer were shown on local TV.
Warning GRAPHIC
http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/353686_20011119132242.gif

The terrorists cut the heads of 3 English and 1 New Zealand engineer and received 30 mln. dollars from Bin Laden for that job.
http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/353685_20011119132241.gif

Three British - Peter Kennedy (46 years old), Darrel Hickie (27 years old) and Rudolph Page (42 years old), - as well as the citizen of New Zealand Stanley Shon (58 years old) were kidnapped in Grozny on October 3, 1998. In Chechnya the engineers of english company "Grainger Telecom" did the assembly of satellite equipment for the local system of mobile telepone network.

This is a reality check for those who still scream " Free Chechnya from Russian barbarians" from their political bandwagon.

[Sergei]

Well, more work for Spetsnaz and more dead scum in the near future :D

Czechian mercenaries are hired for war in Chechenia
11.02.2004 16:29 | News. RU
http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=4262290&s=15

Expansion of the European Community will lead to growth of number of professionally prepared mercenaries, ready to battle in the Chechen Republic on the party of separatists. One of these days the Czech TV and radio have transferred a plot about one of army websites on whom the announcement of a set of mercenaries to the Chechen Republic has been placed. It was informed, that the customer of this announcement was " the organization which hires mercenaries from among citizens of the Muslim countries ". The size of payment which relied to the future volunteers referred to also: about 150 dollars a day. The minimal term of the contract - three years.

According to the Czech TV, searches of people given this advertising, the police of republic is engaged. However in the press-service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs about existence of the similar announcement knew nothing. Therefore comments on a course of investigation to "News" could nobody.

Meanwhile in Czechia there are enough people from which it is possible to hire insurgents for war in the Chechen Republic. Also the question is not adventurers or the despaired homelesses. In the Czech army there are the significant reductions caused by reform of Armed forces and the introduction of the country in the NATO. According to the newspaper of "Front Dnes Mlada", from 11 divisions of a brigade of fast reaction remain only five. Other militarians will transfer in other arms of the service or will send " on a citizen ". The chief of the Joint Staff of the Czech army Paul Shtefka at all did not begin to make comments to journalists on the future of antiterrorist group of special forces from Prostejova - pride of the Czech army. The chief of a reduced brigade Karelian Kopetski has addressed to president Vaclav Klausu with the letter in which has named events occuring in army by sabotage. Karelian Kopetski leaves army.

However in the Ministry of Defence of Czechia do not count a situation disturbing. The representative of ministry Miroslav Shindelarzh informed "News", that " reductions will touch first of all rear services which concern to forces of fast reaction ". " The last year we have reduced 60 person, in this year changes in number of staff of forces of fast reaction are not planned ", - it has assured. But has recognized: the general reduction of army - process inevitable.

It is impossible to exclude, that former militarians appear easy extraction for recruiters. In Czechia as, however, and in other countries - beginners of the NATO, there is no precisely organized system of their rehabilitation. But there is a high unemployment. The first vice-president of the Union of veterans of Czechia lieutenant colonel Ladislav Snoras on a question: whether " there Are chances to find normal work at those who leaves army? " - answers resolutely and without hesitation: "No".

Snoras counts impossible participation of the former colleagues in fighting operations in the Chechen Republic. However does not exclude, that among them there can be "outsiders". Service in army of the foreign state in Czechia count a criminal offence. For last years for it have condemned 13 person. But how beforehand to reveal these "outsiders"? Representatives of presidium of police in conversation with "News" have explained: " Penal act is both recruitment, and service in foreign army ". But raskryvaemost such crimes it is low - it is necessary, that the witness of such recruitment informed about it to law enforcement bodies.

In the spring of the last year for the first time for the last some years the expert from a department on struggle against the organized crime of Czechia has stated (the truth, anonymously) fears concerning growth of criminality in connection with increase in number of Chechens which ask a political asylum: " we have the sad experience connected to the Chechen criminal organizations which operate in our territory. Grave crimes are typical for them. Created by natives of the Chechen Republic criminal clans have strong positions in Czechia. These clans are closed, connected related uzami, and to penetrate into them from the outside it is practically impossible. Therefore for war in the Chechen Republic hardly someone informs about recruitment of volunteers in police or Office of Public Prosecutor ". Natalia KORNELJUK, Prague.

[Ichhabe]

Sergei said:


No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians.

If there are someone that should go easy on the pipe, it would be you. rofl

Don't know about europussies and pipe but Turkey and UK SpecOps operatives was in insurgent training camps. Turkey men provided training for bandits. UK men provided communications and satellite intelligence.

That was told many times by many sources including FSB and army officials

There is a huge difference between mercenaries, adventurers and officially send troops.

Do you really belive those UK SpecOps was send by the British government? And that they were UK SpecOps???

[Kingpin]

Well, this is due to my weak knowledge of english.

AFAIK nobody knows does UK and Turkey governoments sent them or they was hired by Chechens directly.
But they was there. There're a lot of evidences for this.

[wreck]

Sergei said:


No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians.

If there are someone that should go easy on the pipe, it would be you. rofl

Don't know about europussies and pipe but Turkey and UK SpecOps operatives was in insurgent training camps. Turkey men provided training for bandits. UK men provided communications and satellite intelligence.

That was told many times by many sources including FSB and army officials

There is a huge difference between mercenaries, adventurers and officially send troops.

Do you really belive those UK SpecOps was send by the British government? And that they were UK SpecOps???
Could have been just british mercs hired from some company, maybe ex-specop.

And regarding the Turkish soldiers, I'm almost sure they give really 'good' training, considering that their "commando" is less trained than most european conscripts. Just read a book about mehmeds, couldn't even imagine such incompetence by COs and decision makers.

[Sergei]

Sergei said:


No wonder europussies love Chechnya so much, they even send mercs to help fight the Russians.

If there are someone that should go easy on the pipe, it would be you. rofl

Don't know about europussies and pipe but Turkey and UK SpecOps operatives was in insurgent training camps. Turkey men provided training for bandits. UK men provided communications and satellite intelligence.

That was told many times by many sources including FSB and army officials

There is a huge difference between mercenaries, adventurers and officially send troops.

Do you really belive those UK SpecOps was send by the British government? And that they were UK SpecOps???

Where do you think the chechen fighters have all the latest NATO equipment like GPS, satelite phones, mobile communication centers and NATO camo and gear? They even have some scrambling devices to scramble radiocommunication. They have infra-red goggles, they have US anti-materiel sniper rifles.
Is this stuff sold openly in the West or through special channels available only to SpecOps?

[Sergei]

WAY TO GO! :D :D :D



Top Chechen killed in Qatar blast

Yanderbiyev had just returned to his car after attending Friday prayers
Former Chechen President Zelimkhan Yanderbiyev has been killed in an explosion in Qatar.
The satellite TV station al-Jazeera said Mr Yanderbiyev's car was hit by a blast in the capital, Doha.

Two of his bodyguards were reportedly killed and his teenage son, Daud, is said to have been seriously injured in the blast.

Yanderbiyev was mentioned on a UN list of groups and people with suspected links to the al-Qaeda organisation.

A hospital spokesman said Mr Yanderbiyev was leaving a mosque after Friday prayers in Doha's northern Dasma district when the blast occurred.

A spokesman for the Chechen rebels, Movladi Udugov, has accused the Russian special services of involvement in the blast.

But Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has denied any involvement.

You will find no one in Chechnya who will regret what happened to Yanderbiyev

President Akhmad Kadyrov
Leader of Chechnya's pro-Moscow administration
The service "has not taken part in such actions since 1959," when a Soviet KGB agent in Munich assassinated Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist, a spokesman for the service, Boris Labusov, was quoted as saying.

Wanted

Mr Yanderbiyev was acting Chechen president in 1996.

He headed the rebel delegation which held talks with Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin in the same year.

He has been included on the Interpol wanted list since 2001.

The leader of Chechnya's pro-Moscow administration President Akhmad Kadyrov told Russia's Interfax news agency: "Yanderbiyev was the chief ideologue of the separatists and later of their terrorist organisations.

"You will find no one in Chechnya who will regret what happened to Yanderbiyev."

The former Chechen leader had been living in Qatar for three years and Moscow repeatedly sought his extradition.

He was viewed as a key figure behind the 1999 Chechen incursion into Dagestan.

He was also suspected of links to the siege of a Moscow theatre in October 2002 that left 130 hostages dead.

Mr Yanderbiyev was considered a key link in the Chechen rebels' fundraising network from abroad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3485993.stm
END of article


I think if SVR, GRU or FSB are indeed behind this assasination, this will send a clear messege to muds and mud sheltering governments all over Europe. I hope Zakayev doesn't sleep well tonight. You can run, but you can't hide.
woot

[Ichhabe]

Sergei said:


Where do you think the chechen fighters have all the latest NATO equipment like GPS

GPS's are sold openly. And the civilan GPS is way easier to use than the military issued.


satelite phones

Sold openly.


mobile communication centers

And what is that? ;) Got any pictures?



NATO camo

And what is NATO camo. You talking about Woodland camo?? THat is so easy to get hands on that it isn't even funny to try.



and gear

What kind of gear? I can give you a list of "gear", but I don't have enough paper in the house to list up "gear".


They even have some scrambling devices to scramble radiocommunication

Ain't that hard to get your hands on. In fact, I think that can be bought over the Internet.


They have infra-red goggles

Shait. Even I have one at home. Care to buy it??


they have US anti-materiel sniper rifles.

Actually, I have no idea what a anti-material sniper rifle is. So that I'm gonna check out first what is. :)

Edit: Just checked out that anti-material sniper rifle. Hehe. Turns out that I have used that. The Barret I mean. Did not know that it was also called a Anti-material. Well, one learns as long as one lives.

And yes. That too can be bought on the open market. Honest.



So as an answer to you: Yes, most of this stuff is sold openly in the market. For the "funny" stuff, I would think that the Russian mafia would be the main supplier. Hell, after all it is just a question of money. And Russia is a better place, and easier to get the bad stuff. Ain't it?

[Kingpin]

recomended reading. Gives good insight about "freedom fighters" bussinesses. Unfortunately in russian
http://www.izvestia.ru/life/44698_print

[Argyll]

I'd be interested to see some of the stuff pertaining to UK SF training Chechens Kingpin if you care to dig it out?

Wrt Military equipment,there are Western and ME arms dealers that could easily have supplied the Chechens with what they have.

After all was it not Russian arms dealers who sent NVG's and GPS(JDAM) scramblers to Saddam Hussien prior to OIF?

[16 OBr SpN]

I'd be interested to see some of the stuff pertaining to UK SF training Chechens Kingpin if you care to dig it out?

Wrt Military equipment,there are Western and ME arms dealers that could easily have supplied the Chechens with what they have.

After all was it not Russian arms dealers who sent NVG's and GPS(JDAM) scramblers to Saddam Hussien prior to OIF?

Argyll,

Believe me my friend, there were MANY, very interesting figures who trained Chechens.
Like I said in the Chechnya thread, "not all Muslims, not all mercenaries". ;)

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[Argyll]

Interesting indeed!!

[RomanS]

ANd more interesting is that the some trainers lived in US half of their lives.

[Groove]

2 Questions if some1 could answer them to me would be great.

1. Was Chechnya a republic of the CCCP ? Like Ukraine or Belorus for example ?

2. Are there oil fields in Chechnya ? I heard once that Chechnya is rich of oil. That would explain why its not independed.

Thx for any answers !

Groove

[Kingpin]

2 Questions if some1 could answer them to me would be great.

1. Was Chechnya a republic of the CCCP ? Like Ukraine or Belorus for example ?

2. Are there oil fields in Chechnya ? I heard once that Chechnya is rich of oil. That would explain why its not independed.

Thx for any answers !

Groove

1. Incorrect. There was 17 Republics: Russian Federation, Ukraine, Estonia and so on so on. Russian Federation also was divided into different regions, areas and national republics such as Checheno-Ingushkaya where lived Chechens, Ingushs, Osetinians ans a lot of different nationalities. After the fall of Soviet Union it splitted into Chechnya and Ingushetiya.

2. Yes, but remember that wars with Chechens started long before oil become valuable resource. May be oil was one (only one of many!) of the reasons of 1st Chechen war but definitely not of 2nd war.

[Groove]

Thx for info Kingpin.

But how can this question be incorrect ?

1. Was Chechnya a republic of the CCCP ? Like Ukraine or Belorus for example ?

You mean that Chechnya wasnt a "own" republic in CCCP ? Otherwise i dont understand the incorrectness of my question.

Greetings

Groove

[Kingpin]

Thx for info Kingpin.

But how can this question be incorrect ?

1. Was Chechnya a republic of the CCCP ? Like Ukraine or Belorus for example ?

You mean that Chechnya wasnt a "own" republic in CCCP ? Otherwise i dont understand the incorrectness of my question.

Greetings

Groove

Subordination isssue. Checheno-Ingushetia was part of Russian Federation Republic. And RF in turn was part of USSR.

[Shuravie]

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, razed to the ground - 150.000 dead - 300.000 refugees.
http://www.nl12.nl/images/nl12/russia/foto022b.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.hrvc.net/imgs/grozny28.jpg
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Grozny/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.wno.org/images/grozn03.jpg
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/02/26/images/01blastprav.jpg
I never realized it was that bad, untill now.

I've been sitting here thinking about your statement.

Sean, I might be stupid or un-educated in the "Hiding thousands of dead bodies 101", but could you explain to me, and help me to understand something?

How do you hide, and burry One hundred fifty thousand (150,000) of dead boddies?

Taken your numbers my math tells me that in Grozny 25,000 people die each year.
2083 each month
And 69 per day

:(

Much more then in bloked Leningrad, huh? :)

[Groove]

Well - okay isnt a "daily business" of SF to go into other lands and help different kind of "people" ( in this case chechens) on fighting your "enemy" ? I mean - there were russians in North Vietnam...

And im sure there were enough other russian undercover operations through the world ( i think especially in South America) to train enemies of the USA. Thats like the world is goin.

But could some of our russian board fellas tell me why the hell there is a buildup of a GSM (or kind of) cell phone network down in chechnya ? Maybe i misunderstood why this Englishmen were in Grozny ( maybe just spies undercover?). But as a russian Government i would try to NOT let the bandits use cell phones.

Greetings

Groove

[AK-Lover]

Yeah this is all like the big **** up of NATO and america in kosovo. Two reasons why innocent people died in kosovo (including albanians whom nato was supposedly "protecting")
1.) To get attention of Clintons monica scandal.
2.) To gain control of kosovo which is only place on earth with 80% rich uranium.
The war in kosovo and the wars in Chechnya are and were compltely justified, they were to protect the people against sick muslim dogs who rape and kill.
The only people who were "murdered" were the chechen and shiptar "freedom fighters" and there supporters. This is prefectly logical and sensible. :D

[Ratamacue]

What do you mean "NATO and America?" Last time I checked, the United States is still part of NATO.

[Shuravie]

2 Questions if some1 could answer them to me would be great.

1. Was Chechnya a republic of the CCCP ? Like Ukraine or Belorus for example ?

2. Are there oil fields in Chechnya ? I heard once that Chechnya is rich of oil. That would explain why its not independed.

Thx for any answers !

Groove

My point, if you still interesting in that:

1. No. According USSR structure Checnia was part of RSFSR (stands Russian Soviet FEDERATIVE Socialist Republic). Federative, because in Russia we have about houndred different nations. And RSFSR was 1 of those 15 (Hey, kingpin ;) ) repuplics of CCCP (USSR).

2. Not that rich.Compared to Siberian oil fields its just like one drop. If speaking about oil, me must talk about TRANSPORTATION oil, from Caspian fields to Black seas ports. Oil pipeline running directly through Chechnia. This is much more important. And here we can finde out some interests of Europe and USA politics to support chechens ( wich support is not a big secret). Peace in Chechnia will give Russia some preferences on oil market.
I dont want to act like "everything understanding guy", but believe me - questions you asked is pretty far form war reasons.

I hope my terrible english still let you to understand what im sayinn

[Kingpin]

But could some of our russian board fellas tell me why the hell there is a buildup of a GSM (or kind of) cell phone network down in chechnya ? Maybe i misunderstood why this Englishmen were in Grozny ( maybe just spies undercover?). But as a russian Government i would try to NOT let the bandits use cell phones.

Greetings

Groove

:) Correct/Incorrect.

May be they was spies.
As russian governoment i would let bandits to use cell phones - it is so easy to intercept such calls including not only talk but also location of caller. :)

[GazB]

Just saying, but what you feel is the sole motive behind the war in Iraq (oil) is your own perception, nothing more.

Oil was not the sole motive of course, but it is the only motive that actually gets things done. During WWII many in the US wanted to help Britain and recognised the threat Hitler posed, but until Pearl Harbour there was no real way of getting the US public behind such an expensive and dangerous act.
Claims that they wanted to bring democracy, prevent WMDs from entering the region or fight terrorism by delivering a blow to al qada don't tot up. If they really wanted democracy in the region then why is Kuwaite not a democracy? Why does Saudi Arabia have so many politicians with the same last name as the monarcy?... it is not in the US's interests for such countries to find democracy because the majorities in these countries are not pro US. Saudi secret police are just as ruthless as former Iraqi secret police were.
Regarding WMDs, well the west provided them so if anyone knows how much they have it will be the west. Funny how sure they were before the war that they existed and now they aren't so sure.

And all links to Al qada are to Saddams enemies, which is no real surprise as I doubt Al qada would accept Saddam as their leader and I am sure Saddam would not give up any power to clerics.

Ahhh, but the west had to go in to save all those killed by Saddam... what about Rwanda? No oil or are they too black? I assumed it was all about oil because I really don't think the US can be that racist, but still it is an option. Oil makes more sense to me. The American economy runs on oil. They don't need to steal oil, but they need someone to keep pumping despite what OPEC says to keep the price of oil low.


Therefore, if the next person's perception of Chechnya is that Russia is waging an unjust war there, you can't call foul on his opinion if you want yours to be respected.

Opinions based on facts should be respected. Opinions based on 50 years of cold war propaganda... evil Russia... predatory "country devouring" Russia... are bollocks.

I am not suggesting that those who don't approve of Russia are wrong, just that if you can't bring facts and reason then you are bringing emotion and that means squat.


Some people could claim that Russia's war in Chechnya is not about terrorism and purely about imposing its authority to a secessionist nation, yet it would have no less nor no more value than your take on the war in Iraq.


And if it was about imposeing authority on a secessionist state why would they give them autonomy? The lack of law and order and the crime and other problems they had with their new found freedoms shows it was rather less about authority and more about stability.
The only reason the world even looks at the Middle East is oil. War and famine and other problems should make Africa the focus of the world community to help solve problems, but no, financial interests come first.
The west didn't get to where it is today by ignoring its own interests to help others.
I am not suggesting any other country in the world does, but the west seems to pride itself in the illusion that it does.



As russian governoment i would let bandits to use cell phones - it is so easy to intercept such calls including not only talk but also location of caller.

Yes, that was how dudayev met death.

Regarding links between the Kurds and Al Qada... first of all some links are meaningless. The Alqada terrorists that killed a lot of people in the US were trained and supplied aircraft and shelter by the US... does that mean the US should be bombed?

From a BBC report:

20 August, 2002
US knew of bioterror tests in Iraq

News of Ansar's tests follow fresh revelations about al-Qaeda
(BBC Report)


The bold bits are by me for emphasis:



A radical Islamic group has been testing biological weapons at a small facility in northern Iraq, the US Government says - but American plans for covert action against the facility have been shelved.

US officials have confirmed media reports that Ansar al-Islam - a group allegedly linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation - had been conducting the experiments over the last couple of months.

"Information indicated they might be experimenting with [the toxin] ricin, including experiments with barnyard animals and reports of experimenting on at least one human," an official said quoted by news agencies.


Bush may face awkward questions

BBC correspondent Steve Kingstone says the Pentagon considered some form of military action to destroy the facility earlier this year, although officials have refused to elaborate.

Bush administration officials apparently concluded the testing facility was too small and crude to be worth risking American lives over and it was not worth the outcry that might follow a US military operation,

On Monday the White House said it would study a collection of videotapes obtained by a US television network apparently showing chemical weapons' experiments conducted by al-Qaeda.

Deadly poison

Ricin is a biological toxin derived from the coat of the castor bean, which can kill by inhibiting the body's ability to synthesise protein.

Experts say there is no treatment or vaccine against exposure to the toxin, which is several times more deadly than the chemical agents used in World War I.


US media reports said the Ansar tests included exposing a man to the toxin in a market place and then following him home, where he later died.

US officials say there is no evidence the Iraqi Government was linked to the tests, which took place in a region beyond Baghdad's control.

Neither the Pentagon nor President Bush's National Security Council have commented on reports that military action was shelved.

But our correspondent says Mr Bush could face awkward questions as to why bioweapons' testing was allowed to continue given his repeated promises to hunt down al-Qaeda members and to protect the world from the threat of chemical weapons.

Islamist pocket

The area controlled by Ansar al-Islam between the town of Halabja and the Iranian border is known as Iraq's Tora Bora, after al-Qaeda's former mountain stronghold in Afghanistan.

The group is largely made up of Iraqi Kurds from several radical Islamic groups which merged late last year.

Many of members are veterans from the Afghanistan's long civil war, and they are believed to include at least 20 or 30 "Arab Afghans" from Iraq and other Arab countries.

The group has repeatedly clashed with forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which controls the eastern part of northern Iraq, and has wrought havoc in neighbouring villages with its raids.

As well as possible links with al-Qaeda, analysts believe Ansar al-Islam may be under the influence of both Iraqi intelligence and Iran, which has reportedly allowed members to be treated in hospitals over the border.



So from the above it is a group that is made up of mostly kurds and international muslim extremists and is certainly not friendly to saddam. It was allowed to exist by the lawlessness created by the northern no fly zone.
To claim this group allied with Al qada is not Kurdish is to say that the Chechens also allied with Alqadaand international terrorists are not chechens either and the war in chechnia becomes a war on terrorism where chechens and russians on one side fight radical extremists on the other.

[DE_Six]

And all links to Al qada are to Saddams enemies, which is no real surprise as I doubt Al qada would accept Saddam as their leader and I am sure Saddam would not give up any power to clerics.
.

Not as their leader, but you know how "the enemy of my enemy is my ally." How and why else the US mingled with Islamic fundamentalists in the first place? Don't say oil, there is no oil is Afghanistan. It also applies to WW2 Allies.

Ansar al-Islam is a muslim fundamentalist group tied to Al-Qaeda (remember the AQ operative captured at the beginning of OIF?) that was fighting solely against the Kurds. Kurds being the main thorn in the Baath party's side, Saddam provided artillery support to them. But you could argue he was merely bombing his old kurdish foes as usual, not willingly helping anyone. At very least, he never tried to get rid of AAI, even though an atheist oppressive regime like his doesn't fit Islamic fundamentalists' idea of a good muslim state...So no, AQ was not so much of an enemy to Saddam as the Kurds. And the Kurdish guerrilla groups had no connections to AQ. Of course, some Kurdish individuals were members of Islamic groups. AAI had a large proportion of Kurds. But the main groups, PUK and KDP, those who were representative of would-be Kurdistan, and the main targets of Saddam were not Islamists. Proof is that they had an Islamic guerrilla on their back, an islamist guerrilla tolerated and supported to an extent by Saddam. Kurds are not traditionally very religious. They hold most of the religious minorities of Iraq within themselves (Christians, Muslims, even Jews).
Anyway, that's what I was saying from the beginning. You brought the idea of Kurds supported by AQ (as in: "And all links to Al qada are to Saddams enemies"), so why say it's meaningless now? In fact, you mention yourself a group that was NOT hostile to Saddam as being an AQ-sponsored kurdish/international islamists cell at the end of you post.



I am not suggesting that those who don't approve of Russia are wrong, just that if you can't bring facts and reason then you are bringing emotion and that means squat

I didn't say anything about the nature of the opinions. There are facts to justify opposing the war in Chechnya (and Iraq) as well as supportive facts. Not everybody opposed to war is so for emotional reasons. In fact, I'd say equally as many people are supportive of wars for emotional reasons. Think of every wars fueled by nationalism.
The argument goes both way. If somebody's opinion in favor of the war is based on emotions, it is equally squat. Having some facts to back your opinion does not make it more valuable than somebody else's, because someone could have an opinion totally opposed to yours that would also be backed on hard facts. Furthermore, facts are subject to questions. What one deems as hard facts can be propaganda to others, thanks to perception. Opinion is just that, opinion. Therefore, I don't think you can put them on a scale.
Simple example: who has the best perspective on a war, soldiers or scholars? Soldiers know things that study cannot teach, they know facts they have experienced. Yet they are highly likely to be emotional on the subject (guaranteed to be, in fact). Scholars don't have first-hand facts. Best they have is second-hand. They do not have the certitudes soldiers build. Yet, they are more likely to remain detached and thus achieve greater objectivity (although objectivity doesn't exist, every single thing that results of human input has a bias to it). Is the opinion of either any more valid than the other? I doubt it.
I think it's too easy to view one's opinion as more "true", more objective and factual, and to view others as skewed or distorted. It swings both ways.[/quote]

[Kingpin]

DE6

Sorry don't have to read all you wrote

About Afganistan. Yes, it doesn't have oil. But it is strategical point. Way to lay pipes with oil and gas around Russia, Russian allies and Iran.

[Kingpin]

Also US and other allies DO NOT control Afganistan now. Why? Because heroin and other drugs production is on the rise here. Why US fights drug production in Colombia while do nothing with this in Afganistan? They can't because they know their grip is weak here and if will try to do something the face great problems here.

[DE_Six]

Alright, you don't have to read my post if you don't want to. Just don't assume its content then.

The oil reason is very far-removed from the US involvement in Afghanistan in the 1979-1989 period. It had more to do with Soviet presence near Pakistan, at a time were India's status was still pretty much non-aligned and hampering the Soviet effort in order to weaken it, much like USSR did by providing assistance to Vietnam 15 years earlier. It was the Cold War then. Even if the Soviets weren't present on the ground, Afghanistan was not a place were the US could have laid pipelines. Anyway, pipelines to go where? From where? Afghanistan is cast between Iran (no-go region for US), Pakistan (no oil there, unless drawn from around the Spratley, but that is too far to be practical) and what were then Soviet republics (Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, etc), once again, no-go region for the US.
The US involved in Afghanistan for oil? I don't buy that. Iraq, Kuwait, Georgia, Turkey, ok. But Afghanistan? Nope. Oil has nothing to do with that one.
And in case you didn't notice, I'm talking about the US involvement back in 1979, when they provided assistance to Afghan resistance, not OEF in 2001. But that's expectable when you comment on a post you admittedly did not read.
And even then, I don't think it's about oil. Sure, the new republics have some, but honestly, do you think the US would've done anyhting about Afghanistan if 9/11 hadn't occured? I doubt it.

[martinexsquaddie]

just started reading chechnya a small victorious wAR
BY carlotta gall and thomas de waal
none of the leadership of either the kremlin or Jokhar Dudayev come out of it with any glory .
book takes the view that gronzy cost between 27,000 and 30,000 people that was produced by memorial a human rights group that figure was accepted by the russian goverment but may or may not be too high by the same figures was 50,000 for the entire 1st chechen war

[AK-Lover]

Hmm, western author? Sure we beleive her! ;) rofl
And by we I mean me(im serb-russian) and any other people with a sense of truth. :)

[martinexsquaddie]

well as carlotta gall worked for the moscow times as did thomas de waal
and were actually in Chechnya at the time. I'll take there view point over some canadian teenager with a chip on his shoulder

[M_S]

How many % of the chechen people are ethnically russian?
Why did russia leave in the mid nineties? If chechnia is a part of russia then i doubt that russia would allow "terroists" force her give up some of her land.
Why isnt for an example Armenia, Azerbadjan(spelling?), Georgia, Turkmenistan still in russian hands? What's different with those countries?(no need to tell about all of them, wrote many for you to choose)

Now have there been any elections about russian rule?. If yes; how many % participated? How trustworthy was the elections?

Why is some of the chechens "terrorists"? motives?, is the answer is money then what are the motives of the one giving the money?

Just some questions.

[Kingpin]

How many % of the chechen people are ethnically russian?
Why did russia leave in the mid nineties? If chechnia is a part of russia then i doubt that russia would allow "terroists" force her give up some of her land.
Why isnt for an example Armenia, Azerbadjan(spelling?), Georgia, Turkmenistan still in russian hands? What's different with those countries?(no need to tell about all of them, wrote many for you to choose)

Now have there been any elections about russian rule?. If yes; how many % participated? How trustworthy was the elections?

Why is some of the chechens "terrorists"? motives?, is the answer is money then what are the motives of the one giving the money?

Just some questions.

1. Chechen - nationality. So 100% of Chechens are Chechens :) Or you wanted to ask how much other nationalities lived on territory of Chechnya? Well northern part of Chechnya always was native for Russians. Chechens considered as native lands only mountains on South. Actually before 1991 there lived a lot of Russians and other nationalities. But after 1991 genocide of non-Chechens started. Many Russians was murdered, raped, killed. Many left Chechnya to other parts of Russia. In 1994 there was still considerable population of Russian in Grozny. Htey greatly suffered during assault on Grozny. Now Russian live only on the North of Chechnya.

2. Armenia, Azerbajan and other WASN'T part of Russian Federation. They was part of Soviet Union. This is a big difference because Russian federation also was same part of Soviet Union. While Chechnya was just a region inside Russian Federation. Most of Chechnya like i wrote above - native Russian territory.

3. Elections in Chechnya was. How thrustworthy they was it is difficult to decide. Anyway i don't care because after President was choosen and came to power resistance seems to falling apart slowly.

4. Money and "respect" from own clan (tribe) - important motives to become terrorist/insurgent. Teenagers needs for gaining respect. Simplest way to do this - prove that you're ral man by killing or robbing someone. Troops or police or Russian civilians is the best targets because killing Chechen from other clan dangerous due to blood feud traditions :)

[GazB]

Don't say oil, there is no oil is Afghanistan.

So the oil pipelines the US is funding through Afghanistan don't exist?


But you could argue he was merely bombing his old kurdish foes as usual, not willingly helping anyone.

I would argue that if there were no northern no fly zone he would be bombing them himself... and probably bombing them both together. It is the US that created the NNFZ... only the southern no fly zone was agreed to by the UN so the problem lies where do you think?


Kurds being the main thorn in the Baath party's side, Saddam provided artillery support to them.

Quite possible... but just like the US friendship with the communist Chinese I doubt WMDs would ever change hands...


So no, AQ was not so much of an enemy to Saddam as the Kurds.

Not "the Kurds", one group of Kurds.


In fact, you mention yourself a group that was NOT hostile to Saddam as being an AQ-sponsored kurdish/international islamists cell at the end of you post.


Of course... they weren't hostile to Saddam... for how long? If the Northern no fly zone was lifted both would be bombed... he was just choosing the lesser of two evils... much like the US does all the time. The likelyhood he would supply them with WMDs is zero.


There are facts to justify opposing the war in Chechnya (and Iraq) as well as supportive facts.

Where are the facts? There are plenty who say Russia is being too heavy handed and killing to many civilians but no one is offering viable alternative options. Giving them autonomy has been tried and it has clearly failed. What other options do they have?


The US involved in Afghanistan for oil? I don't buy that. Iraq, Kuwait, Georgia, Turkey, ok. But Afghanistan? Nope. Oil has nothing to do with that one.

If it was to build peace and prosperity then why wait till now... the Soviets left in '89.
The War in Afghanistan was about punnishing the Soviets and nothing more... the democracy and freedom BS was just that... BS. Now however there is an opportunity to lay pipes and it is being done. Call it a silver lining.


And in case you didn't notice, I'm talking about the US involvement back in 1979, when they provided assistance to Afghan resistance, not OEF in 2001.

Actually if you want to talk about US involvement lets go back to 1973 when the CIA started taking an interest and interfering more overtly.


Why isnt for an example Armenia, Azerbadjan(spelling?), Georgia, Turkmenistan still in russian hands? What's different with those countries?(no need to tell about all of them, wrote many for you to choose)


Chechnia is part of Russia. Armenia, Azerbaizhan, Georgia etc etc are former Soviet republics. Like Texas is part of the US whereas Canada, Mexico, Peru, Brazil etc are countries in North and South and Central America.


Why did russia leave in the mid nineties?

They wanted independance and I guess Yeltsen didn't want them.

[DE_Six]

Ok, look , you're not even replying to what I posted, you see words and you spin from them...

-The oil pipeline there is NOW could not exist in 1979, or at any date prior to the fall of the USSR for the reasons I mentioned. But I was specifically talking about 1979, not today.

-The no-fly zone? Why do you even bring this in the argument? Of course, if there was no NFZ, Iraq would have used air assets againts the Kurds instead of restraining to artillery, that is why the NFZ was created for in the first place, but all this has nothing to do with the dynamics between Baghdad, the Kurds and AQ. It is just details. Why stray on this? And why would Saddam use air power against both the Kurds and AAI, but artillery on the Kurds alone? Why not just let them fight one another and don't interfere? I don't know why, neither do you, but if Saddam decided that the Kurds were more dangerous than AAI, and if AAI prefered to fight the Kurds rather than attack Saddam's regime, I guess they were not as concerned about each other as they were about Kurds, on which they "ganged-up". That must mean something, threat priority-wise.

-The Kurds were a quite united group in fact. There were internal rivalries between factions, but they all shared an enemy (Saddam) and none displayed much religious inclination, except AAI, which was an avatar of AQ, not a Kurdish independantist group per se and not fighting WITH all the other Kurdish groups, but against them.

-I never said a single thing about WMDs. Nothing. Zilch. Why do you bring this in? Can't you focus on the debate at hand?

-Autonomy in Chechnya has failed? What do you do of the right of peoples to self-government? So what if the Chechens want their country to be a gunrunner/kidnapper/drug smuggling paradise? Let them sort their own business. And don't tell me a powerful nation like Russia has no option but armed force to protect itself when the crime spins across the border. Mexico is a major source of drug entry, illegal immigration and crime on the US southern border, you don't see the US bombing the sh*t out of Mexico. Anyway, I will not further try to argue this way, for I am NOT opposed to Russia's intervention in Chechnya, so I will not build arguements for the sake of conversation. You need a picture? Isn't it enough to recognize that there are valid and sensible reasons to oppose the war? Jeez, you need me to spell out all of them? It's not like I'm defending my view, I'm just pointing out that dissenting views can and do exist and deserve respect, even if you disagree with them.

-About A-Stan...Punishing the Soviets? For what? They were at war for God's sake. A cold one, but war nonetheless. And if you mean that 2001 OEF was about punishing the Soviets...what can I say? You really mean that? You think the US went to war on the Talibans to punish the Soviets? Oh wait, the Soviets don't exist anymore. And punish them for what, anyway? Look, I never said a thing about freedom and democracy. I say the US went to Afghanistan in 2001 to crack down on the terrorist cells responsible for 9/11 implanted there and their host regime (Talibans), since they could not achieve their results through cooperation, like it happened in Europe and SE Asia. Not for oil. They needed oil before 9/11, yet till the attacks occured, they never displayed any interest for the region.

-The part about 1973...yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it makes a goddamn difference what day of what month of what year it exactly began. It wasn't even about this in the first place. I mentioned the US involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation to emphasize a point, that in politics, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. That's all. Let's leave it a that. You don't have to spin off new arguments from every word I say.

I rest my case. It's pointless to argue further, it's turning to a sterile debate of opinions. And that was exactly my original point. It's nothing but opinion, none has more value than another and arguing about them is futile. If you feel yours is better, fine, I don't care and I'm not going to try and change a thing about it. It's perceptions, there are too many individual factors involved in its shaping to debate it. That's not politics, it's psychology. I'm not going there.

Have a good one.

[M_S]

Kingpin: Do you consider siberia to be native russian? :lol:

[GazB]

The oil pipeline there is NOW could not exist in 1979, or at any date prior to the fall of the USSR for the reasons I mentioned. But I was specifically talking about 1979, not today.


I mentioned that in 1979 they weren't interested directly in oil, and the current intervention isn't about rehabilitiating a broken country... it is a personal vendetta against one group that annoyed you... as a bonus however you are taking the opportunity to get some oil flowing...


that is why the NFZ was created for in the first place, but all this has nothing to do with the dynamics between Baghdad, the Kurds and AQ.

No, of course the fact that Saddam can't bomb his enemies properly that he has to rely on their natural enemies that currently have a toe hold to do it for him and that if no nofly zone existed there would be no relationship and all the Kurdish groups would not have had a lawless semi autonomous region for all this time... There would be no AQ in Northern Iraq if there was no NFZ.


-I never said a single thing about WMDs. Nothing. Zilch. Why do you bring this in? Can't you focus on the debate at hand?

How can you ignore WMDs? The threat to the world was Saddam handing WMDs to AQ on a plate for them to use on the west. Of course the reality is that saddam would never hand over WMDs to AQ in a million years.
If WMDs is irrelevant to the debate in question then neither has AAI to do with anything... they are just a regional group with ties to a bigger group that happens to be the only organisation that seems to exist in American eyes.


So what if the Chechens want their country to be a gunrunner/kidnapper/drug smuggling paradise? Let them sort their own business.

When it spills into Dagestan and Moscow then it is Russias business.


And don't tell me a powerful nation like Russia has no option but armed force to protect itself when the crime spins across the border.

You mean like the all powerful US with all its money and technology doesn't need to interfere in any central or south american states?


Mexico is a major source of drug entry, illegal immigration and crime on the US southern border, you don't see the US bombing the sh*t out of Mexico.

And for how long was Mexico part of the US?


You need a picture? Isn't it enough to recognize that there are valid and sensible reasons to oppose the war?

Just one would be nice.


It's not like I'm defending my view, I'm just pointing out that dissenting views can and do exist and deserve respect, even if you disagree with them.


Show me where I have ever called anyone a name for their opinion? Or discredited someone personally.


They were at war for God's sake. A cold one, but war nonetheless.

No you weren't, it was not a declared war. Shall I scan the posters from contemporary soldier of fortune mags asking for money to help kill a ruskie? It was all about percieved revenge for vietnam. Dress it up anway you like but you can't disguise the truth.


You think the US went to war on the Talibans to punish the Soviets?

No, you went to war against your former allies when they didn't jump when you told them to jump...


They needed oil before 9/11, yet till the attacks occured, they never displayed any interest for the region.


I stated the invasion of Iraq was based on oil... not afghanistan... in afghanistan there were different obvious reasons... the oil was just a perk.



It's pointless to argue further, it's turning to a sterile debate of opinions.

Gee whiz... trading opinions and discussing... what a real time waster...


Kingpin: Do you consider siberia to be native russian?

How about a question for you M_S... what is a Native American? Or for that matter what is an American? How is an American different from a Canadian? Both come from North America, yet one is American and the other is offended at being called a Yank... (in my experience most Canadians don't like being called Americans, while most Americans are not offended by being mistaken for Canadians... strange...)

[Flagg]

in my experience most Canadians don't like being called Americans, while most Americans are not offended by being mistaken for Canadians... strange...

So? The average Kiwi would rather shag a sheep than be called an Aussie

GazB......you are DEFINITELY reading way too much into this...the best analogy one can make about the relationship between Canadians and Americans is to equate it with the constant ribbing that exists between Australians and New Zealanders...like siblings they quarrel....but they'll always be family

[Shuravie]

How many % of the chechen people are ethnically russian?
Why did russia leave in the mid nineties? If chechnia is a part of russia then i doubt that russia would allow "terroists" force her give up some of her land.
Why isnt for an example Armenia, Azerbadjan(spelling?), Georgia, Turkmenistan still in russian hands? What's different with those countries?(no need to tell about all of them, wrote many for you to choose)

Now have there been any elections about russian rule?. If yes; how many % participated? How trustworthy was the elections?

Why is some of the chechens "terrorists"? motives?, is the answer is money then what are the motives of the one giving the money?

Just some questions.

Just imagine. Indians in USA (Comanchi or such...in their historical land) declare:
"Ok enouf USA laws and other s**t for us. We want to be independent now, we dont give a sh*t all of you wite bitches. We marking new border, and starting to collect scalps and things like that. Btw, here's good place to raise nice weed. We need some slaves to work on fields also. Its our land. Don't you remember? If you have any objection - we'll start terror on your kids nad sqwo (not sure if i spelled correct last word - means woman ;) )".

What you think?

Just one question

Sorry for bad english.

[DE_Six]

More of the same problem. As Flagg said, you read way too much in what people write. Why am I doing this? Oh, right, for the sake of discussion. But with you, it's a major headache, you stray in ten directions at once...
Ok, so to start on a clean slate, let me reiterate the content of my original post, since you don't seem keen on reading thoroughly. You made a comment that basically equalled to saying that those opposing the war in Chechnya (which, for the Xth time, I am NOT) were so for emotional reasons and therefore their opinions didn't mean "squat" since they were not based on "facts". I put quote marks on your words. It conveyed that all people with rational judgment had to agree with the war, since the "facts" are undisputable. So, I posted to remind that, by civility and plain rationality, it was wrong to put opinions on a scale, because that scale is biased. What you call facts may well be a distortion of the truth, just as much as anybody else's. It is your perception of things. Opinions may be irrelevant in some debates, scientific ones for instance, where for example one cannot debate the Earth is round, not flat, or that boiling water turns to gas. But we're talking about war, a form of human interraction that is highly ****e to bias and interpretation. And even when the people who discuss it are experts in practical and theoretical aspects (see my example of the scholar versus the soldier), their perception is affected. You simply cannot say "look at the facts, see the truth" about a war. None of us know all the facts and are objectives, so let's quit pretending any of us is right or wrong. Example (and I emphasize this, before you spin off in a new direction with this example), I do not think that OEF (Afghanistan 2001) had much to do with Russia. Very little, and not in the way you exposed it. I think it was about rooting out terrorists. I do not pretend it was in the name of human rights and democracy, but to say the US went to this extent to piss Russia off, when they could simply give more money to Georgia for example, is just ludicrous TO ME. That is my perception, based on my interpretation of the facts I gathered. You disagree. To you, it was about pissing Russia off. Fine. It is your interpretation of the facts you gathered. I'm fine with that, and I respect your opinion enough not to go and say that you are wrong simply because you don't draw the same conclusions as me. And as I stated, the reason we see things differently are manyfolds and mostly psychological, not rational and objective. If we could all see the same "truth" in the same facts, no one would disagree on anything. it obvioulsy isn't the case. But that is okay. I admit I have a bias towards the US and the West in general. I think it shows in my posts. I also think you have a bias towards Russia, it also shows in your posts. Fine by me, we're all sinners. So let's not pretend anyone's opinion is superior to anybody else's just because we can't agree. If you wonder why I think you didn't respected the equality of opinions, read further down. This said, I'll persevere for the sake of exchanging ideas, hoping it won't spin even more out of line.


mentioned that in 1979 they weren't interested directly in oil, and the current intervention isn't about rehabilitiating a broken country... it is a personal vendetta against one group that annoyed you... as a bonus however you are taking the opportunity to get some oil flowing...

See, this is were I disagree. I think it was about terrorism first and foremost. But you don't have to agree.


No, of course the fact that Saddam can't bomb his enemies properly that he has to rely on their natural enemies that currently have a toe hold to do it for him and that if no nofly zone existed there would be no relationship and all the Kurdish groups would not have had a lawless semi autonomous region for all this time... There would be no AQ in Northern Iraq if there was no NFZ.

To me, this looks like a big guess...I don't think anyone has the knowlegde to spell out how the world would be if something had been done differently. What if, what if...You can have reasons to think that maybe this or that might have happened differetly, but to declare that if there was no NFZ, there would be no AQ in Iraq is a big stretch of reasoning. May I also point out that in an earlier post, you said that all AQ presence in Iraq were Saddam's enemies... Now you agree with me that Saddam was using AAI to fight the Kurds by proxy. Moreover, you call AAI the Kurds "natural enemies"...if they are natural enemies, it is safe to assume that NFZ or not, they would have been up there fighting alongside Saddam's forces. And one last thing, the NFZ was a restriction, not interdiction. The Allied AF denied flight in the regions, but not ground movements. They only attacked ground forces when targeted by air defense. Therefore, Saddam was free to use armor and artillery (a more potent force thatn his crummy AF) against the Kurds.


How can you ignore WMDs? The threat to the world was Saddam handing WMDs to AQ on a plate for them to use on the west. Of course the reality is that saddam would never hand over WMDs to AQ in a million years.
If WMDs is irrelevant to the debate in question then neither has AAI to do with anything... they are just a regional group with ties to a bigger group that happens to be the only organisation that seems to exist in American eyes.

I chosed to ignore the WMDs in this debate because it strays from the subject. My point was to show how alliances are often formed out of the presence of a common enemy. It seemed that Iraq was a good example, where a secular regime hated by fundamentalist islamists is actually helping one such radical islamic groups to fight it's won war by proxy. The same way US provided assistance to muslim radicals to fight the USSR in the 1979-1989 period, and the same way the Western allies joined efforts with the USSR against Nazi Germany. All those alliances are against nature, yet they appear out of common interest. In that view, the question of WMDs was about as relevant to the debate as the the migratory path of northern geese or the actual temperature of the sun's core. I never even suggested that Saddam, if he had WMDs (I think ihe didn't have any in 2003, that he once possessed them, but that is beside my point) would have given them to anyone, much less AQ. I never said that. Never. Re-read my posts. I never mentioned WMDs until you brought it up. As for AAI having ties to AQ, there are facts to prove it. If you think my facts are bollocks, fine. Whatever floats your boat. I reserve the right to brush aside your facts equally. It's not like either of us beholds the "truth".


You mean like the all powerful US with all its money and technology doesn't need to interfere in any central or south american states?

Yep, that is exactly my point. The US has influenced elections (much like Russia did in Chechnya recently, too), toppled elected leders even, manipulated, bought, eliminated rivals, but it never barged in in full force to achieve it's objectives, save a few direct interventions (Panama, Grenada, Domincan Rep., etc) but NEVER on the destructive scale of the Chechnya conflict. I'm not an idealist. I am favorable to the US but I'm not naive. Lie, cheat, steal, but do we have to resort to carpet bombing? See, I agree with Russia's desire to secure it's southern border and its influence in the region, even more so that the US are closing in the region to compete, but the way this whole war is fought seems excessive to me. But then again, I am biased by my western culture, so I will not pretend to armchair-quarterback anyone, much less the Russian authorities on how things should be done. It's just my opinion on the thing. Anyway, it's not like I feel I must defend it at all costs. If you think I'm wrong, well guess what, I don't give a heck.


And for how long was Mexico part of the US?

I could argue that Russians and Chechens are about as culturally and ethnically close as the Americans and Mexicans can be...Therefore, if the US has no authority over a distinct people, why would Russia be legitimate in imposing its will on what isn't much more than a colony? Then again, this is only rhetorical. If independant Chechnya is such a threat to Russia (which claim I find as questionable as the Iraqi WMD threat to the US National security...), then Russia must act to protect it's people. It's just the way the war in Chechnya is fought that I frown upon. But then again, I won't paly the armchair quarterback. Let's just say that if Russia handled Chechnya like the US handles Mexico, or to an extent Iraq, I would have none of the already few objections I have towards the war in Chechnya. Let me also add that I do not put the blame on Russia only. I think the Chechens are equally wrong, and much more dirty in their way of fighting (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever, they fight dirty), but they have the excuse of being a clannish, rather martial society embezzled in a radical religious faith.
So let me just return the question. Since when is Chechnya culturally, ethnically and historically a WILLING part of Russia?


Just one would be nice
Look, I think I'm obvioulsy not prepared to defend an antiwar position, for I am NOT antiwar (does that begin to sink in?). But when people tell me they oppose the war on grounds of massive civilian casualties and human rights abuse, about which reports are countless, I respect that opinion. I disagree, but I don't shake my head in despait, saying "those pour souls, can't they see they are wrong? Oh, how I wish they saw the truth!"...And again, if you discard all the facts brought forth by human rights groups and media outlets as "propaganda" when it doesn't fit your views, that is your problem. Do a little research on abuses and casualties in Chechnya. I understand if you skip Kavkaz.org (I do too), but if you don't brush everything aside as "western propaganda", you'll see there are plenty of reasons, for people with a different mindset as yours, to oppose this war. You don't have to agree with them, but respect their opinions. If to you, Russia's security is worth a war, accept that to some, all the innocent deads aren't worth it. Their perception of reality is simply different, not right or wrong. I, for one, will not do the reserch work to defend a position I do not hold just to satisfy you. It's not like I have access to secrets that will awe everyone.



Show me where I have ever called anyone a name for their opinion? Or discredited someone personally.


Okay. Please note that I've never accused you of discrediting or calling names, but of making the assesment that all opinions are not equals.


Opinions based on facts should be respected. Opinions based on 50 years of cold war propaganda... evil Russia... predatory "country devouring" Russia... are bollocks. am not suggesting that those who don't approve of Russia are wrong, just that if you can't bring facts and reason then you are bringing emotion and that means squat

You give a very strong impression that facts make it right and that all opposition is just emotional. There are many facts to oppose the war, but if you discard them as "cold war propaganda", you paint all opponents to the war as brainwashed by lies. Thus negating all their arguments, rejectinf them as fallacies and lies. If that is not what you meant, try to be less radical. Some of the facts that you call cold war propaganda, or human right groups propaganda, or whatever else, may appear as rock-solod facts to others, and you have no right to judge of that. No one judges your reasons to support Russia, respond in kinds. That is all I meant. Nothing more. I'm ready to believe you could give point to facts that oppose your beliefs, I don't think you're that conceited, but the way you respond to other's arguments is a little...derisive. Thus giving the impression you look down others as "fools". Need another example?


Ahhh, but the west had to go in to save all those killed by Saddam... what about Rwanda? No oil or are they too black?


Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.


The Russians didn't start the wars in Chechnia... they reacted to the actions of some extremists inside an area they governed.


There is a paternalist tone to your posts. Like you were enlightening others. Your statements leave no room for doubts, they're definitve. But it is nothing more than your opinion. It has zero value, just like everybody else's, including mine. So when you say that "opinions based on emotions aren't worh squat", you obviously exclude your own. Thus, you build a scale on which your opinon has more value than others. The last two quotes I picked represent perfectly the duality. On the one hand, you tell us all who for some reason or another think that Iraq was about the war on terror, that we are dead wrong. Then, to all who think that Russia actually started the war firsthand to put down a secessionist movement, you also "inform" them they are wrong, for you know what's really going on, what happened, every little what, where, who, when. Maybe it's just me, but it comes across very pretentious.


No you weren't, it was not a declared war. Shall I scan the posters from contemporary soldier of fortune mags asking for money to help kill a ruskie? It was all about percieved revenge for vietnam. Dress it up anway you like but you can't disguise the truth.

That is your opinion. Okay, it wasn't a war. It was nonetheless called the Cold WAR, but, that doesn't mean anything. I don't want to see posters from a rag, I know war wasn't declared. But do alittle research and tell me how many wars awere actually officially declared since 1939? Armed conflicts and international crisis are what I study, you won't jack me on this. It's a negligible fraction. And BTW, how do you explain everyhting that happened BEFORE Vietnam? The Soviet pilots in Korea, for isntance? Coincidence? Anyway, think what you please.


No, you went to war against your former allies when they didn't jump when you told them to jump...

That seems to me like a bit of a stretch, to call the Talibs formal US allies, but I do see a point there. They didn't hand over Bin Laden when initially asked, then summoned. So they got it up the keister. Fair to me.


No, you went to war against your former allies when they didn't jump when you told them to jump...


Ok. My bad here. I thought you meant Afghanistan.


Gee whiz... trading opinions and discussing... what a real time waster...


It is actually quite demanding to engage in debate with you. You pop in every directions and are quite hard to follow. Hence the long posts and the numerous repetitions. Take it as a compliment if you want, I'm just saying...

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I think I'll really let it die now, enough talk, more walk :D

Have a good one.

[AK-Lover]

I think Russia should just do this to Chechnya :P!:
http://www.netoriginals.com/uss/images/resources/bomb.jpg
You know it's right! rofl rofl rofl

[SeanAshi]

...well make it a convetional blast and not nuclear because you guys spread enough radiation with chernobyl as it is.

[Russian Texan]

...well make it a convetional blast and not nuclear because you guys spread enough radiation with chernobyl as it is.

Yeah, but the wind is blowing towards Europe :)
So if they would like to finance and build new sarcophagus... I am sure there will be no objections from the Ukranian goverment.

[SeanAshi]

Yeah, but the wind is blowing towards Europe Good point! :D

[SeanAshi]

How about Saudi Arabia?
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Earth/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/Images/impact-earth.jpg

[Marxist203]

Good job russia... :roll:

Maybe next time you use some intelligent/smart bombs/rockets and don't just shoot down the whole country.

Smart Bombs? Look at the psychological effect that would have on the enemy. Smart bombs dont ruin an opponents ability to do well...anything. They cant even live there for god sake! full scale artillery barrage is still more effective...because Smart bombs can still make mistakes.

[16 OBr SpN]

When I read some posts by some members I think that this forum is probably the place of all tactical geniuses. :roll:

Macs,

Give me your "genius" thoughts on how to "properly" storm the city being held by almost 11,000 Chechens. They formed a dense, three level defensive perimeter. Buildings are made as shooting positions for snipers, grenade launchers, AT operators, and machinegunners. Underground communications are well established.

As far as I can see by your remark, you don't know ****!

[SeanAshi]

Give me your "genius" thoughts on how to "properly" storm the city being held by almost 11,000 Chechens.I'm sure the IDF is wondering the same thing when it comes to Palestinians terrorist in Gaza.

[M_S]

SeanAshi: your geografy knowledge sucks! :D

Thats not Saudi Arabia, Its the Sinai.

[16 OBr SpN]

Give me your "genius" thoughts on how to "properly" storm the city being held by almost 11,000 Chechens.I'm sure the IDF is wondering the same thing when it comes to Palestinians terrorist in Gaza.

Should I see your post as being sarcastic? :)

If yes, would you care to elaborate? Or do you want to compare Palestine and Chechnya? ;)

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[SeanAshi]

SeanAshi: your geografy knowledge sucks
well **** :oops: I need glasses

[GazB]

First you say this:


I do not think that OEF (Afghanistan 2001) had much to do with Russia. Very little, and not in the way you exposed it. I think it was about rooting out terrorists.

Then you quote me saying:


in 1979 they weren't interested directly in oil, and the current intervention isn't about rehabilitiating a broken country... it is a personal vendetta against one group that annoyed you... as a bonus however you are taking the opportunity to get some oil flowing...

And say you disagree...??? You said above that it was about rooting out terrorism... but of course one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, so in reality you weren't rooting out terrorists you were just going out against the Taleban and Al Qada. That is basically what I said... but you disagreed?


I don't think anyone has the knowlegde to spell out how the world would be if something had been done differently.

Hmmm, well it might be a guess, but do you really think that if Saddam had full control of the northern no fly zone airspace with no interference that he would only bomb the Kurdish rebels and not the AL qada rebels? Exactly how much land do you think he would let Al qada have? I am guessing, and I am guessing none.


My point was to show how alliances are often formed out of the presence of a common enemy.

Such alliances rarely form naturally. In this case international pressure from the UN but also from the US and UK has pushed him into a corner and he has had to deal with whoever will deal with him. Whose fault is that?


As for AAI having ties to AQ, there are facts to prove it. If you think my facts are bollocks, fine.

Without WMDs then Saddam could be Osama Bin laden in a dress for all these so called ties matter. The US has closer ties to Al qada than Saddam did. If you ignore WMDs then you might as well ignore the ties between Saddam and Al qada.


but NEVER on the destructive scale of the Chechnya conflict.

I think 4 million dead, and Laos entering the Guinness book of world records for being the most bombed country in the world would disagree with you there... all to stop communism sweeping through Asia.


I could argue that Russians and Chechens are about as culturally and ethnically close as the Americans and Mexicans can be...Therefore, if the US has no authority over a distinct people, why would Russia be legitimate in imposing its will on what isn't much more than a colony?

And if law and order broke down in Mexico... or Haiti who would send in troops to restore law and order?


If independant Chechnya is such a threat to Russia (which claim I find as questionable as the Iraqi WMD threat to the US National security...), then Russia must act to protect it's people.

How many Iraqis mounted armed raids into the US or blew up apartment buildings in New York?


It's just the way the war in Chechnya is fought that I frown upon.

Can you explain in detail how it was fought? Apart from what you have seen on TV how much do you (or I for that matter) actually know about the situation?


US handles Mexico, or to an extent Iraq, I would have none of the already few objections I have towards the war in Chechnya.

How about how it handled Vietnam? The Vietnamese people were a much stronger people than Haitians or Iraqis or Mexicans. The required level of force was beyond what some might call civilised. The Chechens are more like the vietnamese than the Iraqis and I really don't think you can compare them.


but they have the excuse of being a clannish, rather martial society embezzled in a radical religious faith.


So translating that to the American example... what would you say if I said:

"Let me also add that I do not put the blame on America only. I think the vietnamese are equally wrong, and much more dirty in their way of fighting (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever, they fight dirty), but they have the excuse of being a poor, rather martial society embezzled in a radical communist faith. "

I mean Napalm, carpet bombing, leveling huge swaths of countryside... that was vietnam... not chechnia...


Since when is Chechnya culturally, ethnically and historically a WILLING part of Russia?

What does that matter? Since when is Iraq culturally ethnically and historically a willing part of America? The current elected leader in Chechnia is a Chechen, but like Iraqs leaders for some time he will need the endorsement from the "parent" country to get to power. In both cases the transitionwasn't great but the current situation is rather better for the people than it was under the last regime.


But when people tell me they oppose the war on grounds of massive civilian casualties and human rights abuse, about which reports are countless, I respect that opinion.

And which massive civilian casualties is that? Where are all these massive piles of bodies located? Does it matter that the first few hundred piles of bodies were russians killed by chechens?

NATO reversed some ethnic cleansing in Kosovo but now it is the Serbs that are being eradicated... that seems to be acceptible. Why not the same in chechnia now with albanians and russians and serbs and chechens changing places?


I, for one, will not do the reserch work to defend a position I do not hold just to satisfy you.

If you haven't researched it then you shouldn't defend it. I don't want you to research it for me but if you are going to assume it is true then why don't you read it for yourself?


but of making the assesment that all opinions are not equals.


An opinion without research or thought has less weight than one with one or other or both.

I could have an opinion that the sky is actually green but never look up or think about what problems that might cause (like youy wouldn't know where to stop mowing for a start..). Should that opinion have the same weight as someone who watches the sky and thinks the sky is blue or red in some conditions?


You give a very strong impression that facts make it right and that all opposition is just emotional.

If you choose not to do your research to show me why you think the way you do then you only have emotion. The only hard evidence I have seen is from some of the less pleasant sites that you have mentioned and they always seem to point to Chechen attrocities rather than Russian ones.


There are many facts to oppose the war, but if you discard them as "cold war propaganda",

There are many reasons to oppose all forms of war, but I have yet to see some good reasons or alternatives for Russia in this case.


Thus negating all their arguments, rejectinf them as fallacies and lies.

Just as they reject my arguments because I like Soviet and Russian military hardware... The propaganda comment was to explain the emotional decision that Russia must be wrong... without any facts to back it up. How else could someone with no facts to support their case possibly come to a conclusion that one side or the other is guilty?

If you were a judge and a case was put before you and you already knew your decision it could only be because you already knew one of the parties involved... if the defendant was a habitual criminal then as soon as you saw his name you'd be thinking he was probably guilty if the crime fitted your profile of him.


may appear as rock-solod facts to others, and you have no right to judge of that.

I have no right to question the impartiality of organistations like the red cross, yet based upon what the red cross have to say others can damn the Russian army as being full of war criminals... interesting.

So we shall call Americans war criminals for the Me lai massacre?


Thus giving the impression you look down others as "fools".

Well if that is the case I appologise. If I though someone was a fool I wouldn't bother talking to them... only a fool would try to educate a fool after 10+ years of schooling had failed them...


So when you say that "opinions based on emotions aren't worh squat", you obviously exclude your own.

If my opinions were based purely on emotion then yes they would be worthless. If you want to discuss those comment you think were worthless I would be happy to discuss the various aspects of them. But for a minute lets take one...

"Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror."

A few operational Al qada operatives fighting Kurds in Northern Iraq is no reason to invade Iraq. There are rather more Al Qada in many other countries around the world, like Saudi Arabia that are much more of a threat to the US. The so called threat in Iraq was WMDs which apparantly were fully weaponised and ready to be used in 45 minutes.


Then, to all who think that Russia actually started the war firsthand to put down a secessionist movement, you also "inform" them they are wrong, for you know what's really going on, what happened, every little what, where, who, when.

OK... a little example. Occupied Eastern Europe, Poland under communist control. Fall of the wall the Polish take back independance. There are a few skirmishes... who started it?

When you try to change a government from communist to capitalist and democratic are you starting something or is the government?

This is not an opinion question... it is a logic one. The Russians had control of chechnia and lost it to rebels... they tried to take it back and fought to a ceasefire that led to partial autonmomy for the chechens. Then the unrest and border raids and terrorism that was coming out of chechnia required Russian intervention to restore law and order. Now one could argue that the Russians "started" the second war when they intervened but even anti Russians coudln't claim they started the first war. In my opinion they were provoked both times and had legitimate reasons for doing what they did.


The Soviet pilots in Korea, for isntance? Coincidence?

So the Spanish civil war was really WWII and WWII was WWIII due to the fact that most nations were represented in that one.


They didn't hand over Bin Laden when initially asked, then summoned. So they got it up the keister. Fair to me.


I personally thought it was a bit harsh. What if Russia... instead of killing him themselves like they did recently went in with an armed force and removed the current government of Quatar from power to eliminate that chechen war leader chappy they killed recently?
The US expected the Taleban to accept their word that OBL was responsible for doing something without showing them any evidence and when they refused the US sent in troops and airpower to remove the government!!! Pretty extreme I think.


...well make it a convetional blast and not nuclear because you guys spread enough radiation with chernobyl as it is.


Chernobyl is in the Ukraine.

[DE_Six]

And say you disagree...??? You said above that it was about rooting out terrorism... but of course one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, so in reality you weren't rooting out terrorists you were just going out against the Taleban and Al Qada. That is basically what I said... but you disagreed?


No, sorry. I thought you meant the group that annoyed the US was the Russians and now, OEF was meant to piss them off. My bad. If you meant AQ and the Talibans, then yes, I agree. Although I'd call 9/11 more than a mere annoyance...

I will not respond point by point again, this is endless...

However you posted something about my intial post I 'd wish to reply


An opinion without research or thought has less weight than one with one or other or both.

I could have an opinion that the sky is actually green but never look up or think about what problems that might cause (like youy wouldn't know where to stop mowing for a start..). Should that opinion have the same weight as someone who watches the sky and thinks the sky is blue or red in some conditions?


You could. I would disagree but respect that. I look out my window right now, and the sky is a pale, milky gray. My neighbor is colorblind, the sky is white to him, always has been. A daltonian sees the sky purple. Another yellow. How can you actually convince those people that the sky is blue? What if the majority of the world population has a wrong perception of the sky's color because of the human eye structure? Say, that in order to protect the retina from some yet unchartered rays, we have a feature that actually blinds us to the sky's real color? The answer is science. You can determine by some procedures that our eyes have a correct perception, and that accordingly, we can reasonably believe the sky is blue (sometimes). But this kind of scientific proceudre does not apply to politics, news reporting, war and a plethora of other things. It is not an exact science, with undisputed facts. In fact, it is ripe with interpretations and skewed presentations. So how could any of us judge of somebody's opinion when we cannot even prove anything? Time tends to reveal things a little, much like science does for natural phenomenas, but when we argue about current issues, we could all equally be dead wrong, all of us. That is what I'm trying to point out. But I could be wrong.


If you haven't researched it then you shouldn't defend it.
I'm not defending the anti-war position. I'm calling for respect. Does it really seems impossible to you that some people oppose war because they don't like seeing people's lives being ruined? Maybe you are more sensible to cold, rational arguments, like national interest and security, but not everyone is like that, that's all. And no emotions are not always squat in my view, at least. Just an example: I'm walking down the street, and a girl is about to be raped by thugs in an alley. Rationnally, from cold reasoning, I shouldn't get involved. I should keep walking and pretend I haven't seen anything. The thugs are bigger than me, there are two of them, I have good chances of getting my a** whupped and then they will proceed with the rape anyway. In the case I do defeat them, what will I get in terms of reward? A mention in the newspapers? A civil merit citation? Poor incentives, given the risks. But I'll help that distressed girl, because of my values, my principles. Those are not facts, they are emotions. The only reason I'll try to help that person regardless of my own security is emotional. Am I wrong? Is my opinion squat because rational facts don't back me up?
Don't answer that, I'm just expressing my disagreement. Politics and war are anything but a rational, exact science. You can quote all the websites and the authors, it never removes the emotional aspect. What you think is sensible may be foolish to somebody else, there is no possibility of concensus. This is what boards like this fuel on.


There are many reasons to oppose all forms of war, but I have yet to see some good reasons or alternatives for Russia in this case.

Well, "good" is up to you. Some people think the UN should handle it. I personally don't hink it's a good idea, but the alternative exists. At least in theory. Wether reasons are good or not being a subjective question, let's start with alternatives regardless of good or bad. There are a few, besides the UN. Diplomacy could be one, I suppose. I'm not the best advocate for alternatives, for I'm favorable to war in this case, my reservations on firepower notwithstanding.
In fact, that is probably the big problem in our debate. You've been consistently challenging me to say why I think Russia is wrong where America already threaded, when really I never said anything such in the first place. I have followed you in your digressions, and maybe I gave the impression I was opposed to your opinions, when really I was trying to make a point about the respect of opinions, regardless of the issue. I don't think you should feel targeted by that even though I adressed you with it. To me it's valid for everyone, you just happened to write something that spurred my inspiration, I guess.


If my opinions were based purely on emotion then yes they would be worthless. If you want to discuss those comment you think were worthless I would be happy to discuss the various aspects of them. But for a minute lets take one...

"Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror."

A few operational Al qada operatives fighting Kurds in Northern Iraq is no reason to invade Iraq. There are rather more Al Qada in many other countries around the world, like Saudi Arabia that are much more of a threat to the US. The so called threat in Iraq was WMDs which apparantly were fully weaponised and ready to be used in 45 minutes.


First to me, it's not worthless. I may disagree, but I can't determine what is worthless.

But your quote and your explanation are a good example of what I mean when I say all opinions are equal in the political arena between reasonably educated people. What you just wrote is not facts only. It is your interpretation of the facts. There are facts, like the US government's claim about WMD being 45-min warning-ready. But there are other things that cannot be proven. The number of AQ operatives in Iraq for instance is not a verifiable fact. That Saudi Arabia is more of a threat than Iraq is also impossible to verify. A single ben Laden-like individual could have been in Iraq and represent by himself a greater threat than all the operatives in Saudi Arabia. The actual terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia could be overestimated. Iraq may actaully have WMDs not yet found. All the hypothesis there have a common point: they cannot be verified. You can quote them and use them to justify your position if it fits your purposes, but you cannot claim it is undisputable. That you use those facts to back your opinion is in itself an emotional action.

To an extent, statements based purely on emotions should be disregarded. But those are seldom encountered, I haven't seen many on this board, and they are rejected outright, because they often reek of racism or other kind of derogative connotation. People ususally seek facts that will confort them in their beliefs, in order to defend it and secure themselves. Nothing wrong with that.


This is not an opinion question... it is a logic one. The Russians had control of chechnia and lost it to rebels... In my opinion they were provoked both times and had legitimate reasons for doing what they did.

It is an opinion question. According to what you say, a declaration of independance is a provocation and Russia was legitimate in putting it down. I believe in the right of peoples to self-government, a belief tempered by the realities of international politics. But in some people's opinion, this right is the most important one there is, and no country that represses an independantist movement is ever legitimate in doing so. So, these people view Russia as wrong to have tried to put down the secessionist movement of Chechnya. From there on, their interpretation of the facts is that the first war was a colonial one, and that the second is the consequence of their refusing the Chechens the right to self-government. Now, before you start a methodical dissection of this particular opinion, it is not mine, but it's one I encountered many times, and I assure you that people that believe it to the core are very well documented and prepared to defend it. So, yes it is a matter of opinion. Not everyone has the same perception as you on the question.


So the Spanish civil war was really WWII and WWII was WWIII due to the fact that most nations were represented in that one.

Er, what? I posted the Soviet pilots example because you wrote

No you weren't, it was not a declared war. Shall I scan the posters from contemporary soldier of fortune mags asking for money to help kill a ruskie? It was all about percieved revenge for vietnam. Dress it up anway you like but you can't disguise the truth.
in which you claim, if I'm not mistaken, that there was no Cold War because it was never officially declared and that everyhting we call Cold War was really revenge for Vietnam, which leaves me peeplexed about the West/USSR antagonism between 1945 and 1965. Cuban missiles crisis, U2 spy flights, Korea...that wasn't a Cold War?

Then again,

Dress it up anway you like but you can't disguise the truth
How am I suppose to argue with someone who knows the Truth? I'm but mere mortal, here...BTW, that's what I meant about the tone of some of your posts.


I personally thought it was a bit harsh. Pretty extreme I think.


I return the comment. I think it will decently summarize my position. I think the US were legitimate in going to Afghanistan to remove the Talibans and get AQ. I equally think Russia is legitimate in going to Chechnya and get a hold of the terrorists that place bombs in Moscow and raid hospitals across the border and take hostages. You think it's harsh to topple a regime, I think it's harsh to flatten a city. It is a matter of opinion.

[GazB]

Although I'd call 9/11 more than a mere annoyance...


Didn't mean to trivialise what that a hole OBL did, but at the end of the day the US could lose 3,000 civies a week for ever and still be a superpower and be globally dominant. The Military significance of the attack was very minor... it was really more annoying than life threatening (ie the US was no where near collapse... it was more Pd off than hurt.)


I would disagree but respect that. I look out my window right now, and the sky is a pale, milky gray.

I think you are confusing the sky with clouds. The Sky is blue or red and I have never seen it a different colour.


Rationnally, from cold reasoning, I shouldn't get involved. The thugs are bigger than me, there are two of them, I have good chances of getting my a** whupped and then they will proceed with the rape anyway.

Is that really reason or fear of the consequences of doing what you know to be the right thing? Personally I'd have tried to stop him and accepted the whupping knowing I was doing the right thing... hopefully the young lady would have used the distraction of me getting my arse kicked to leg it. But I know there are not always happy endings like on TV.


A mention in the newspapers? A civil merit citation? Poor incentives, given the risks.

If you have such reasoning then your problem is your morals.

Personally the personal guilt of doing nothing to help would stir me into action more than any medal or recognition. If I receieved a beating, and the girl got away I'd be happy... sore but happy. Even if no one ever spoke of it again and no one ever thanked me for doing the right thing I would be happy. On the other hand if I had done nothing and not gotten a beating I'd have never forgiven myself... something I'd have lived with the rest of my life... unlike broken bones and bruises.


Am I wrong? Is my opinion squat because rational facts don't back me up?


Opinions have a rational basis. There are reasons you have the morals you do. Some are good reasons some are just habit or something you may have decided upon with no real thought. Beliefs on Gay people, abortion, what religion you are are the sorts of things you are talking about. What I am talking about is Bigotry. All Russian Planes are unreliable. All Russian soldiers are half trained killers that had to choose between service or jail. The Russian government is only interested in aquiring new territory to rebuild an empire to become a threat again.

This sort of rubbish without facts to support it is just that... rubbish. Sure you could single out a Russian soldier that raped a woman or stole something. You could do that for any armed force in the world. Unfortunately young men have been known to do that sort of thing throughout time. But when a Russian soldier does it it is proof that the Russians are less civilised but if an American does it in Japan or South Korea then he is an exception in an otherwise fine armed force.


What you think is sensible may be foolish to somebody else, there is no possibility of concensus. This is what boards like this fuel on.


This is a discussion board. If I say something you genuinely think sounds wrong or even foolish just say so. But dont' just say so... say why you think it sounds foolish and we can discuss it further. If you can't be bothered discussing such things why do you bother coming to forums?

I don't expect to change anyones mind on anything, but actually discussing things rationally rather than emotionally leads to a bit more understanding on both sides... tell me that is a bad thing...


Some people think the UN should handle it. I personally don't hink it's a good idea, but the alternative exists.

But Bush and Blair say that the UN is irrelevant... It is not a UN issue.


when really I was trying to make a point about the respect of opinions, regardless of the issue.

Opinions that have facts behind them I respect. People with just gut feelings about something that don't actually know what is going on I have no respect for as they have not thought about it... it is like when you say hello, how are you to someone you know on the street and they say hello back and that they are fine. They say they are fine because it is an automatic reaction. If they said they had just gotten off a 20 hour shift at work and they were tired then I'd know they were tired, but if they just say fine then I really don't know how they are... just that they either assumed I asked because that is a type of greeting common in the west and didn't really want a genuine answer or they chose to hide their real feelings from me.

A Knee Jerk Russia is evil opinion from an anti russian person would be expected and therefore rather not very interesting. If Permskiiomon stated that Russia did something wrong and could have done things better then I would give serious consideration to the facts and reasoning he gave to support what he was saying. Equally if an Israeli mention a mistake the Jews had made or a pro arab person stated bad things the arabs did then you give them more credence... not because they are more trustworthy, but because it goes against their known bias. In my case I have a soft spot for the Apache. Sure it is a bit of a hangar queen and is very expensive to buy and operate but it is a powerful and very capable aircraft that has had the misfortune of being misused and abused by people who should know better.


That Saudi Arabia is more of a threat than Iraq is also impossible to verify.

Osama is saudi, most of the terrorists in the 11/9 attack were saudi nationals, most of the network was funded by saudi money... do you need a burning bush? The only reason the Saudi monarchy wasn't a victim or regime change was because if the US got rid of them there would be a civil war and no doubt a government that was Islamic and unfriendly to the US would take power. Besides the Saudis bend with the wind and do as they are told when they are told... they dont need to be replaced. If the Taleban had done the same the they would still be stoning women for appearing in public with a man other than her brother...


Iraq may actaully have WMDs not yet found.

Even a million tons of WMDs have done him no good. If he can't even use them to defend himself when would he use them?

Besides the efficient use of Chem and bio weapons isn't that easy. The West and East spent billions on delivery systems alone. Ten tons of Ricin might wipe out the whole world, but only in the same way that a bucket of water could do the same... everyone in the world, one at a time drowned in a single bucket of water. The delivery of WMDs is difficult and expensive and beyond Saddams capability to do more than attack the odd village. Europe and the US were quite safe from him.


People ususally seek facts that will confort them in their beliefs, in order to defend it and secure themselves. Nothing wrong with that.


Such thinking got women who helped deliver babies burned at the stake as witches. It also created and fuelled religious wars, all kinds of racism, sexism, and bigotry. Bending the facts to believe what you want might be US and UK government policy, but it very stupid in practise.


According to what you say, a declaration of independance is a provocation and Russia was legitimate in putting it down.

The declaration was not a provocation... it was the killing and lootng that occured afterwards and the attempt to take control from those who had control that was provocative. You don't think all the police and army units just evapourated when independance was called for.


So, these people view Russia as wrong to have tried to put down the secessionist movement of Chechnya.

Did they actually put down a genuine secessionist movement? If the Chechens were really interested in freedom what was it only for ethnic chechens? Why were ethnic russians killed? What about their rights?

Look at Kosovo. NATO went in there to stop the Serbian police and Serbian Army from so called ethnic cleansing. The result was that the serb civilians were ethnically cleansed from the region when the albanians returned. My question is that if both sides are killing the other sides civilians (and I am not saying the serbs or the Russians are ethnic cleansers here) then how can one side be good and the other bad?

The freedom the Chechens were fighting for was for no one but themselves... they would get their own freedom but oppress others in their new found free territory. After they got autonomy they started sharing that oppression with their neighbour Dagestan... which is part of Russia. A strange action for a peace loving democratic country... unless it was neither... and if it was neither then the Russians going in to impose law and order isn't really about freedom is it?


in which you claim, if I'm not mistaken, that there was no Cold War because it was never officially declared and that everyhting we call Cold War was really revenge for Vietnam,

No, What is called the cold war predates vietnam. Afghanistan was another proxie war fought by surrogates and used by the Americans to hurt the Soviet Union just like Soviet support helped spread a friendly style government to SE Asia and hurt and more importantly tie up the US... for a while they had more than 500,000 troops in Vietnam.


Cuban missiles crisis, U2 spy flights, Korea...that wasn't a Cold War?

It is called the cold war but was no more a war than the period of animosity between Germany and the allied powers between WWI and WWII. There were wars where German forces fought on one side and other forces fought on the other, like the spanish civil war. It wasn't a real war (ie hot) though it did get very warm several times.