Pathetic interview with Russian politician

arcadegame2004

I watched Prime Time tonight. Am I the only one outraged at Miriam's failure to bring up the issue of Russians massacre's in Chechnya? The female politician was arrogant and imperialist. But then, most of the Russians think it's okay to commit genocide, as long as it helps "Mother Russia" retain their fascist rule in the Caucasus.

I personally will not be buying anything from Russia if I can help it until they end their Nazi policies in Chechnya. Putin is an evil monster. I make no exaggeration in pouring out my hatred for him. He is the Hitler of Chechnya. He is without feeling, without emotion, other than a intense hatred of Chechens. His puppet government in Chechnya is a new Vichy-regime, with Alu Alkhanov about to become the new Marshall Petain.

I demand that our pathetic Western governments speak out on Chechnya.

mike65

AracadeGame I may have missed something not having read ALL your contributions to politics, so I have to ask -

Whats the beef you have with Russia?

Are you Chechen? Do you know one? Are you married to one?

Mike.

aidan_walsh

The Russian bride he ordered was lost in the mail...

arcadegame2004

AracadeGame I may have missed something not having read ALL your contributions to politics, so I have to ask -

Whats the beef you have with Russia?

No. My bone to pick with them is outrage at their genocidal policies in Chechnya. Like the Chechens, we are a small nation that has been ruthlessly oppressed for centuries, and hence I see Putin as an Oliver Cromwell-style butcher. I am sickened that any electorate could elect someone like that. I am also outraged that their army is carrying out the worst war-crimes Europe has seen since the Nazis.

I call for a boycott of Russian goods until they clean up their act. Preferably a worldwide or EU boycott. Genocide is genocide, even when a large country is committing it. Arrogant Russia needs to be brought to its senses.

The silence of Western governments towards Russians massacres in Chechnya stands in sharp contrast to their positions during the Kosovo War. They are actually continuing to grant Russia loans with which to pay for the slaughter in Chechnya. There are Beslans every day in Chechnya, and the Western governments turn a bling eye. Shame on you Blair for dodging the questions on Chechnya in your press conference yesterday. The spirit of Vichy is alive and well, I see.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I personally will not be buying anything from Russia if I can help it until they end their Nazi policies in Chechnya.

I'll give up the Beluga caviar if you go off the 98% proof brain razing Siberian home brewed vodka for a while.

MrPudding

I know. Why don't we let them all come over here. Of course they would have to fly here directly and not land anywhere else in between but I am sure you would welcome them.

MrP

arcadegame2004

I'll give up the Beluga caviar if you go off the 98% proof brain razing Siberian home brewed vodka for a while.

Having seen what happened with my father having to go on dyalaysis and then have a kidney-transplant followed by cancer-causing anti-rejection drugs. I actually will never drink alcohol again.

If we are to be consistent in our condemnation of brutal wars, in a manner that shows we are not simply being anti-American, then we must condemn war-crimes from whererver they come. We should not be selective about which genocides we condemn. We need backbone in Western capitals.

The Russian economy is about the size of Hollands, in spite of its huge population. They are not important to the West in terms of trade. We have potential leverage over them in the form of the loans Western governments give Russia. These should be refused until the Kremlin learns to stop massacring innocent civilians. Vlad the Impaler must be brought to heal.

the_syco

Chechnya shouldn't have bombed Russia when they got independence after the Berlin Wall fell. A few other USSR states got independence. Chechnya got it, bombed Russia, and they've been bombing each other since. Yes, I've seen teh sh*t that goes on in Chechnya, but no-one cares.

Why?

Cos the IRA had some type of morals. They mainly went after military, RUC, or related targets. Chechnans go after civilians. Every time. 2 planes got blown up. Did they care who was on board? No. So I say let the Russians bomb Chechnya. When they stop killing civilians, and only go after military targets, maybe I'll give a damn.

spongebob

Yawn. Whats the point in giving out about Miriam. Miriam is a pompous and myopic bag with an extremely limited capacity for elucidation.......especially when hectoring is the easier option. However, Miriams researchers landed her with the equally pompous and myopic foreign affairs committee woman . They deserved each other in a morbidly symettrical way but nothing got sorted by it .

While Putin is not the single worst thing that happened to Chechnya he will not end the war or broker any form of political settlement . Therefore the horror will go on there. At least 10% of the population of Chechnya were killed by the Russians in the 1994-96 incursion alone and many more since.

The Chechens feel that the Russians have them cornered and wish to widen the war to include the neighbouring Caucuses republics. The most recent of the wars , the current Russian incursion, was caused by the Chechens invading Dagestan to the east a few years back so thats not a new strategy is it . This time the Chechens may get what they wanted . The Trinity Prof on Primetime described the Caususes as a manyfold Yugoslavia ready to blow.

I have every confidence in the ability of the Russian security forces to make a barbaric murderous shambles of the whole region ...and not just Chechnya and parts of Ingushetia as at present and in the ability of the Georgians to provoke the Russians once too often and thereby internationalise the conflict ....albeit chaotically and unpredictably. Unlike with Yugoslavia in 1991 it is really quite hard to predict the political outcome but a death toll in the low to mid 100's of 1000's by the end of this decade is probably a good start

M

therecklessone

the_syco wrote:

Cos the IRA had some type of morals. They mainly went after military, RUC, or related targets.

This isn't the place for that discussion, but how do these grab you?

Warrington

Guilford

Birmingham

Frizzel's fish shop

La Mon

Jean McConville

arcadegame2004

the_syco wrote:

Chechnya shouldn't have bombed Russia when they got independence after the Berlin Wall fell. A few other USSR states got independence. Chechnya got it, bombed Russia, and they've been bombing each other since. Yes, I've seen teh sh*t that goes on in Chechnya, but no-one cares.

Why?

Cos the IRA had some type of morals. They mainly went after military, RUC, or related targets. Chechnans go after civilians. Every time. 2 planes got blown up. Did they care who was on board? No. So I say let the Russians bomb Chechnya. When they stop killing civilians, and only go after military targets, maybe I'll give a damn.

The PIRA had some kind of morals? They didn't go after innocent civilians? That's news to me! :rolleyes: Colin Parry would be interested in hearing that.

There you are. Tarring all the Chechens with the same brush. According to you, this was "the Chechens" who killled civilians. That is just like saying that it was "the Irish" who bombed Warrington etc. And I suppose you think it was "the Irish" who bombed Omagh too?

The Chechen rebel movement is not a monolith. It has splintered into an Islamist faction led by Basayev, and a more moderate faction led by the elected President (elected in 1997) Aslan Maskhadov. The Russians are lying when they say that Maskhadov had a role in Beslan. Their claim he was is a propaganda tactic by the Kremlin in order to deflect pressure for Putin to talk to him.

In the 1798 Rebellion, 700 men, women, and children were rounded up by Republican forces and burned alive in Scullabogue. This was a terrible attrocity. But did it mean "the Irish" i.e. the majority or all of them, were murderers of civilians? Of course not! Kindly stop the blood libel against the Chechen people.

The Russian state is even crueller than Israel.

aidan_walsh

There you are. Tarring all the Chechens with the same brush.

I just **** myself laughing there. This line, from a person whose been saying nothing but "the Russians", and included "most of the Russians think it's okay to commit genocide" in the opening post...

Ah, to be able to believe what I want when I want like you can...

arcadegame2004

doodle_sketch wrote:

I just **** myself laughing there. This line, from a person whose been saying nothing but "the Russians", and included "most of the Russians think it's okay to commit genocide" in the opening post...

Ah, to be able to believe what I want when I want like you can...

Well my discussions with Russians have revealed to me that they feel that they have some sort of god-given right to oppress the peoples of the Caucasus. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but not very many.

The outrage currently being directed at Chechens would be directed at the Russians if Putin allowed the Western media into Chechnya to see what is going on. Certainly, Putin is a war-criminal, and a far greater one than any of the Chechens.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well my discussions with Russians have revealed to me that they feel that they have some sort of god-given right to oppress the peoples of the Caucasus. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but not very many.

Very scientific of you. Must have been a cross section of Russian society, was it?

arcadegame2004

therecklessone wrote:

Very scientific of you. Must have been a cross section of Russian society, was it?

Given the 2 elections of Vlad the Mad I would say so.

Redleslie2

How does one reconcile this rubbish...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If we are to be consistent in our condemnation of brutal wars, in a manner that shows we are not simply being anti-American, then we must condemn war-crimes from whererver they come. We should not be selective about which genocides we condemn. We need backbone in Western capitals.

...with this rubbish?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We need to be careful not to elect someone like Michael D. who I fear (though I might be wrong) could use the Presidency to make speeches denouncing US foreign policy and President Bush. While in some instances I would agree with such criticisms, a small country dependent on exports to the US and the EU needs to tread carefully, possibly including keeping their mouths shut sometimes.

Surely it requires more backbone to criticise powerful states that could impose a trade embargo and banjax the economy in a week or convert the whole place to an airbase in the morning if they felt like it than to criticise a mickey mouse country like Russia which, says you, is of negligible importance to us economically.

Your arguments are making even less sense than usual in fairness.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Given the 2 elections of Vlad the Mad I would say so.

Marvelous. You should try a career in political science... :rolleyes:

therecklessone

AG2004, in this thread you claim the following

AG2004 wrote:

It is a shame that the Russian public are being punished for the crimes of their leaders. They are not even aware of those crimes, because of the dictatorial control Putin has established over the media.

Now you claim this

AG2004 wrote:

Well my discussions with Russians have revealed to me that they feel that they have some sort of god-given right to oppress the peoples of the Caucasus. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but not very many.

If you believe the first quote, how can you blame that sample of Russian's you've spoken to (and the entire Russian people as you are wont to do) for their lack of knowledge of whats going on in Chechnya?

Isn't it true that you can't remember what you've posted in the past because you're twisting this way and that, with no consistency in what you have to say?

arcadegame2004

If you believe the first quote, how can you blame that sample of Russian's you've spoken to (and the entire Russian people as you are wont to do) for their lack of knowledge of whats going on in Chechnya?

I was reading up tonight on opinion-polls in Russia that sampled Russian public opinion on Chechnya. I will try to find the links to the pages I read. But the general gist of their findings were that Russians felt that Chechens should have less protection for their civil-rights than Russians themselves. I also read that in the months leading up to the 1999 return of the hated Russian soldiers to Chechnya, Yeltsin and Putin began a media propaganda war which even including suggestions that the Chechens had DNA that made them murderers. Kind of like the Nazi propaganda against the Jews.

I see no contradiction in my two earlier statements. My point was that it was a shame that the Russians living in Beslan were forced to suffer for Russian genocide in Chechnya of which they knew little, sue to the Kremlin's creeping Soviet-style reassertion of control over the media (Anna Polakaskaya was a journalist critical of the war in Chechnya and she was mysteriously poisoned on her way to Beslan - we know who was behind it).

That is not to say that if the Russians did know, that they would not have supported the massacres of Chechens. They have an imperial mindset. They seek to compensate the damaging affect on morale caused by Russia's poverty by colonial oppression that gives them a sense of their "superiority" over the Caucasian peoples. Considering how the Irish were treated by Britain, I see a definite parallel here, and I urge the EU to press Russia to allow human-rights monitors into Chechnya and to allow access to humanitarian NGO's such as the Red Cross. The killing of innocent civilians can NEVER be justified.

May I add the following: Any attempt to persuade me that the Russian political elite are not responsible for the massacres in Chechnya will not work. A glance at Russian history illustrates very vividly the extreme ruthlessness of Russia towards its minorities. Look what Stalin did to the Chechens and the Ingush, as well as the Georgians and the Ukrainians. Contrary to Soviet propaganda at the time and since, the Chechens and Ingush had NOT collaborated with the Nazis (the Nazis had not even reached Chechnya at any point in the war). They were deported because Stalin feared they would collaborate. The Tsars were no better, with their policies of Russification which has led to a situation whererby in Belarus, just 10% of the population now speak Belarussian.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I was reading up tonight on opinion-polls in Russia that sampled Russian public opinion on Chechnya.

So everything you posted before that evening to do with what the Russians knew/thought about Chechnya and the situation there was made up?

But the general gist of their findings were that Russians felt that Chechens should have less protection for their civil-rights than Russians themselves.

Bit like you seem to feel about immigrants and asylum-seekers in Ireland. You seem to have found some unlikely soulmates. At least they have an excuse (going from posts you have made) in the form of actually not having access to any of the truth about whats happening in Chechnya. Whats your excuse?

That is not to say that if the Russians did know, that they would not have supported the massacres of Chechens.

Ah...so what you're saying is that while "The Russians" can't be held guilty for supporting something they didn't know the details about....that you believe "The Russians" would have supported it if they had known.

a) Complete and utter assumption, and I can't even figure out what its based on, given that you've just argued that one reason "The Russians" think like this is because of state-fed propaganda and misinformation.

b) Look who's tarring everyone with the same brush again, or have I not emphasised "The Russians" enough to make it clear yet?


jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, as a small nation that faced genocide from the British, we are morally obliged to stand against the tyranny of empires. Please do not defend the Putin tyranny and its Vichy puppet, Alu Alkhanov.

I have just come back from reading a Russian forum on the war in Chechnya, where my suspicions were confirmed. Someone on the forum said that killing civilians was okay if it was "in a cause". Also, he said that if necessary, they should kill every single Chechen man, woman, and child. How sick can these people be? Didn't a certain Cromwell say stuff like that about us? He acted on it too.

I am not tarring everyone with the same brush. But the polls always show that the Russians are absolutely delighted by Putin's policy of exterminating the so-called "inferior-peoples", just like Nazi Germany (e.g. 80% of Russians supporting the war in Chechnya). Call this what it is "fascist". The Russians must get out of Chechnya. It makes no sense for Russian mothers to have to get their sons back in body-backs as a result of a pointless Crusade against Muslim men, women and children.

Putin is a tyrant and while generally-speaking I try not to think unfavourably of other nations, I must confess that the mass slaughter of the Chechen-people by a brutal army of barbarians, together with Putin's determination to label ALL Chechen separatists as "terrorists" has made me increasingly anti-Russian, in the same way as people felt increasingly anti-Nazi in Western countries as the true nature of the Nazi regime in Germany became clear.

Look what happened to Anna Polakaskaya. She had the temerity to criticise Putin's policy in Chechnya, and she ends up poisoned. Coincidence? I think not. Look too at the sacking of the editor of the Izvestiya newspaper for criticising the Kremlin. But by bit, Putin is reestablishing the brutal dictatorship Russia waved goodbye to in 1991. The press are suppressed, the television-channels have all been taken over by the Government, using excuses like debts owed to Gasprom etc. Public-demonstrations have just been banned. The elections and referendums in Chechnya were rigged. Almost no television time was given to Putin's competitors in the Presidential Election in Russia. It shouldn't take a rocker-scientist to figure out what Putin's game is. His treatment of the Chechens is also a return to the repressive treatment experienced by them under the Soviet system, including people being taken away to be shot. How can anyone not hate this guy?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, as a small nation that faced genocide from the British, we are morally obliged to stand against the tyranny of empires. Please do not defend the Putin tyranny and its Vichy puppet, Alu Alkhanov.

I could say the same to you every time you oppose people getting away from brutal regimes by opposing asylum in Ireland.

And before you misinterpret that, let me be more explicit. I have in no way defended the Putin tyranny, nor that of Alkhanov. Stop putting words in my mouth - its just further proof of the point that I was actually trying to make, which is that your entire argument is confused.

You seem to have totally lost track of the fact that the Russians did not kidnap those kids. Yes, I accept fully that much of how the Russians treat Chechnya is atrocious, but you seem to have forgotten that this latest incident which you are frothing at the mouth at was not done at their instigation (unless you'd like to start a conspiracy theory that the terrorists were Russian plants).

Furthermore, you spend all this time frothing further about teh atrocities that the Russians comitted. Every eye witness account I've heard from the events in the school say the terrorists opened fire, and fired at the backs of the then-fleeing hostages.

And you blame the Russians.

Given that you've just listed our occupation under England as a reason why we have to support teh Chechens here, I would therefore have to equate your assignment of the blame here with someone blaming the British for the Enniskillen or the Docklands bombings.

I have just come back from reading a Russian forum on the war in Chechnya, where my suspicions were confirmed.

Really? Someone reading this forum would have their suspicions confirmed that Ireland is - in reality - full of left-wing peacenik socialist tree-huggers.

I didn't think I'd have to point this out, but.....online fora are in no way representative of a population. They aren't representative of a population in a relatively well-connected nation, so they sure as sh1t aren't representative of a population in a nation such as Russia.

Someone on the forum said that killing civilians was okay if it was "in a cause".

You'll find quite a number of people on this forum have said more or less the same thing when it comes to civilian deaths from US and other operations. I don't see you standing up screaming for justice against the heavy-handed manner in which the Americans deal with terrorism which has - in part - sprung up because of the manner in which the Western world has treated the Middle East as some sort of playground.

No - the US can do what they like to terrorists, and kill as many civilians as is necessary along the way, but as soon as the Russians do the same.....woof...then its a different ballgame.

Exactly what did you want the Russians to do in the school? Negotiate with terrorists? Capitulate to terrorists? Stand idly by once the terrorists started killing civilians?

Also, he said that if necessary, they should kill every single Chechen man, woman, and child. How sick can these people be?

So we've gone from "he said" to "these people". How soon before we're back to "The Russians" as you simultaneously give out to everyone else who uses an unqualified plural for "tarring everyone with the same brush".

Firstly, there are nuts in every society - people who hold views which are abhorrent to the majority.

Secondly, I will again reiterate that you pointed out that the Russian people are underinformed and over-propagandised about the Chechens. Now you're telling us that they are sick people because they've actually believed the lies they were told?

Thirdly...can you give us the link to this site? I assume its in Russian (what else would Russians speak), but thats no problem...I have some Russian-speaking mates who will give me a hand. If its not in Russian, incidentally, then I'd very much question how you know these were views expressed by Russians. In any case, I'd still question how you've concluded these views represent those held by any significant portion of the 145-odd million population.

I am not tarring everyone with the same brush.

You're just doing exactly what others have done which you've been giving out as "tarring with the same brush" - that being making assumptions about a population/people based on the actions of a tiny minority, or just referring to them in an unqualified plural (e.g. "the Russians".

If you want to insist that this isn't tarring with the same brush, I'm quite happy to accept that, as long as you stop making those allegations and will discuss the points raised instead of dismissing them in that manner. While you continue to lambast others with the insistence that their arguments are tarring, then your similarly worded arguments can be considered nothing else.

But the polls always show

Then show us the polls. Stop telling us you read them last night, or that you will get around to it and just show us the damn things.

I can't believe its so hard to actually think while reading something "oh, this might be useful in terms of the discussion I'm having on boards. Maybe I should bookmark it so I can reference it".

I mean, its not like being asked for linkage to your latest set of stuff you swear is true is something that hasn't happened before.

So show us the polls. Until you do, I'm just going to ignore them because I can have no faith in your accurately representing or interpreting mathematical information based on past experience.

jc
jc

Stabshauptmann

therecklessone wrote:

This isn't the place for that discussion, but how do these grab you?

Warrington

Guilford

Birmingham

Frizzel's fish shop

La Mon

Jean McConville

Your links are non-viewable as they bring us non registered ppl to a sign up page. The fact that the IRA has killed civilians doesnt actually negate the_syco's point that they showed a preference for military targets.

Lemming

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the polls always show that the Russians are absolutely delighted by Putin's policy of exterminating the so-called "inferior-peoples", just like Nazi Germany

Two things spring to mind arcadesywadsey ....

1. would you mind showing detailed, /credible/ proof of a policy of "extermination"? Are the russians rounding up people and throwing them into concentration camps to be burned in ovens/gased with ziklon B?

2. On that note, by bringing the nazi's into your argument you've automatically lost your entire argument.

Godwins Law is a b*tch isn't it? ........

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

Lemming wrote:

Two things spring to mind arcadesywadsey ....

1. would you mind showing detailed, /credible/ proof of a policy of "extermination"? Are the russians rounding up people and throwing them into concentration camps to be burned in ovens/gased with ziklon B?

Articles on alleged massacre in Grozny here and here.
LA Times article on what Russian troops call 'bespredel' - no limits.

therecklessone

Necromancer wrote:

Your links are non-viewable as they bring us non registered ppl to a sign up page. The fact that the IRA has killed civilians doesnt actually negate the_syco's point that they showed a preference for military targets.

Well I don't know how they do, the first two are from the BBC site, and the other four didn't ask me for registration (and I hadn't visited those sites prior to last night)

Anyway, maybe you'll be able to see this one:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

Total deaths attributed to Republican paramilitaries (1969-1994) 1896
Civilian deaths attributed to Republican paramilitaries 704

Thats 37% of all deaths were civilian

[note]I accept that Republican paramilitaries covers ALL republican groups, but I think we all agree the IRA were responsible for the majority of Republican killings in the troubles[/note]

Anyway, I mentioned those links to show the original poster that teh IRA weren't as "moral" as he'd like to think. And like I said, this is a topic for ANOTHER THREAD!

bonkey

Yes indeed...its for another thread, and lets keep it that way please.

jc

Redleslie2

therecklessone wrote:

Total deaths attributed to Republican paramilitaries (1969-1994) 1896
Civilian deaths attributed to Republican paramilitaries 704

Thats 37% of all deaths were civilian

That doesn't mean they were all the IRA's primary targets though. They had phases where they targeted civilians on purely sectarian grounds but by and large they attacked military and economic targets. Sometimes there was collateral damage as they say these days. Sometimes there were screwups. Eg. Above Frizzells chip shop was the HQ of the UDA and the bomb went off prematurely.


Oops, going way OT, will delete if asked to do so.

ary

May be someone will be interested in reading this
http://www.lib.ru/MEMUARY/CHECHNYA/chechen_war.txt

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Some would (arguably) consider the Irish Famine to be of a genocidal nature.

Mighty_Mouse

Anyway, I mentioned those links to show the original poster that teh IRA weren't as "moral" as he'd like to think

So as long as a poster accepts that their off topic. Any posting is not allowed to be refuted If your so adament about another thread, start it. But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

sceptre

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

No, but I can (all of a sudden)

Week's holiday from the forum for anyone who chooses to talk about the IRA (on either side)instead of something even vaguely to do with the topic in this particular thread. It's only this childish need to have the last reprisal that caused the actual conflict to go on beyond ludicrous in the first place. I'd swear some of you do searches every morning for potential opportunities to get in a dig from either side.

talos

Some links:

statistics
public opinion 2001
forum
moscow streets

Hobbes

Necromancer wrote:

Your links are non-viewable as they bring us non registered ppl to a sign up page. The fact that the IRA has killed civilians doesnt actually negate the_syco's point that they showed a preference for military targets.

Use www.bugmenot.com, If you have firefox you can install the bugmenot extension and you can automatically log into these sites.

bonkey

Cheers Talos. Yet again, it would appear to say something other than the "statistics" that arcade presented.

How surprising.

jc

Redleslie2

I think Putin said during the week that the Chechens were being helped by western agencies who have an interest in keeping Russia weak. Has this got any credence?

talos

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think Putin said during the week that the Chechens were being helped by western agencies who have an interest in keeping Russia weak. Has this got any credence?

Do you meen this ?

talos

Very good article:

http://www.carnegie.ru/en/print/56870-print.htm

Look at "Chechnya" paragraph

from article

The tragedy of Chechnya (and of Russia) lies in the Chechens’ continuing inability to organize themselves politically - for peacetime reconstruction and nation-building. A prerequisite for any lasting political solution should be the formation of a credible Chechen authority that commands the support of both the population of the republic, the refugees, and the diaspora. This authority would develop a new constitution for Chechnya and negotiate its final status with Moscow.

arcadegame2004

The tragedy of Chechnya (and of Russia) lies in the Chechens’ continuing inability to organize themselves politically - for peacetime reconstruction and nation-building. A prerequisite for any lasting political solution should be the formation of a credible Chechen authority that commands the support of both the population of the republic, the refugees, and the diaspora. This authority would develop a new constitution for Chechnya and negotiate its final status with Moscow.

Aslan Maskhadov was elected President of Chechnya in the only fair elections to be held in Chechnya - not the rigged elections of Vichy-regimes. Putin should talk to him. Alternatively, he should talk to another separatist and stop these lies that all separatistis are "terrorists, child-killers etc." The Russian army are child-killers in Chechnya and Putin keeps handing out medals to those implicated in the massacres, so clearl Putin oly minds child-killing when it's of Russians. Putin's contention that Maskhadov shared responsibility with Basayev (whom I accept from his previous admissions of responsibilities of terror attacks was involved in all likeliehood) sounds like lies designed to end the pressure on Putin to talk to him. By labelling even the most moderate elements of Chechen separatism as "terrorist" Putin has backed himself into a corner from which he will lose a lot of face if he talks to ANYONE, no matter who they are. Then again, he does not face re-election under the Russian constitution due to the two-terms rule. But his sycophants in the Duman were talking a while ago about handing him a third term, while he said back then that he had to refuse. But was that just a PR stunt?

Stony, emotionless, remorseless Putin will probably continue his brutal slaughter, rape and torture of the Chechen people, driving them into the arms of extremists, while preaching again from the pulpit about "the war on terror which we all face blah blah blah YAWN!". I contend that the war against Russian troops - PROVIDED IT DOES NOT TARGET CIVILIANS - is also a war on terror - Russian terror. A people being exterminated has no option but to take up arms. Terrorism is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I contend daveirl that the Famine was state-sponsored genocide for the following reasons:

A:There was actually a surplus of food in Ireland at the time. It's just that Irish people couldn't afford it because we had been practically reduced to serfdom.

B:American aid-ships were blocked from landing for 2 years of the Famine by the Royal Navy. You have to ask WHY.

C:A British parliamentary committee had warned in around 1837 that a famine was on the way and the British DID NOTHING.

Also, who could not consider what Cromwell did to be genocide? He killed 300,000 of us. I'd call that genocide. Putin is the successor of Cromwell, visited on the Chechens this time. You can almost sense the evil from that stony stare of his.

SkepticOne

the_syco wrote:

Chechnya shouldn't have bombed Russia when they got independence after the Berlin Wall fell. A few other USSR states got independence. Chechnya got it, bombed Russia, and they've been bombing each other since. Yes, I've seen teh sh*t that goes on in Chechnya, but no-one cares.

Not quite. They declared independence in 1991 but it was never grated and from Moscows point of view, Chechnya remains part of the Russian Federation. Brief history here.

arcadegame2004

Could people here please stop using the definite article when referring to Chechens involved in the terrorist attack in Beslan? It is racist to call them "the Chechens", because it tars an entire race with the same brush.

How would we feel if an IRA bombing in London was referred internationally as an attack by "the Irish"?

Same goes for the invasion of Shamil Basayev's men of Dagestan in 1999.

SOME Chechens. Not THE Chechens.

sceptre

Er, considering your usage of "The Russians" up the page, their imperial mindset, "the Russians" being absolutely delighted by Putin's "policy" based on reading the views of a few blokes on the interwebulator who say they're Russian and obviously must be representative of almost everyone and an opinion poll that obviously neither includes all "the Russians" on Putin's side (ignoring the representative nature of the poll so it's an indication of the views of "some Russians" extended to "more Russians"), moving from Putin saying that if necessary they'd kill the lot and applying it as a view of "these people", I reckon you should get your own house in complete order before criticising anyone else's use of the word "the". You meant "most" or "almost all" Russians yeah? Cos that's what you pretty much said you meant. I tend to view "almost all" as being practically equivalent to "all" (well, almost) but perhaps that's just me.

That's aside from the fact that the last usage of "the" applied to any Chechens I can see came from Redleslie2, who's obviously (and a monkey could see it) applying it to the Chechens who are involved in insurgency/seperatism and/or secession by military means/freedom fighting/killing children/make up your own term and presumably only those Chechens, I can't see what you're rabbiting on about. I mean, good lord, we still talk about "the invasion of Scotland by the Irish" even though not everyone had a boat, the "retention of Catholicism by the Irish (or 'Ireland') even though there were plenty of Protestants who didn't have their houses burned, the actions of "the landlords" back in the nineteenth century and before although there were quite a few who were nice to their tenants. It's poor diction (I suppose) but it's neither an argument clincher or a hanging offence.

Now I'm off into the kitchen to look for "The teabags" even though there may be teabags elsewhere that I don't own. I know my girlfriend has a small collection of teabags, there may even be teabags not controlled by me or my immediate family. See, context that can't be misinterpreted.


Now totally aside, and purely out of interest can you knock me out some source for 300,000 Irish people killed by Cromwell? Nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it's just I can't seem to make the figure out of the 5000-odd (IIRC) at Drogheda, 3-4000 at Wexford, few thousand at Clonmel, Limerick, Athlone and so on and I'm wondering how many old people died on the walk to the Wesht. I can fudge a few figures in my mind to possibly make 30,000 but 300,000 is rather higher than we would have been told in national school (even accounting for all the kiddies sent to Monserrat and the like and anyone who died on a boat after being sold). Personally, I don't want or need a discussion on Cromwell in a thread about the Russiand and the Chechens so any kind of half-breakdown would be of personal interest (given that the English deaths were about 200,000 and I've no idea about the Scots).

talos

Then again, he does not face re-election under the Russian constitution due to the two-terms rule

What do you meen by this "two-terms rule"?

Putin was elected two times (there was 2 elections).

sceptre

talos wrote:

What do you meen by this "two-terms rule"?

Putin was elected two times (there was 2 elections).

Aye, he just can't go for a third term under the Russian Federation Constitution (I presume that's in article 4) so he's limited to two.

However he's currently got enough deputies in both the Federalnoye Sobraniye and the Duma to change that constitutional provision if he likes. Hasn't shown any sign of wanting to do so but then he's got about forty months until the next election.

Sand

AG2004 - word of advice - you cannot go around making generalisations about "the russians" and then go around criticising people for talking about "the chechens". To do so makes you look like a fool. Youve walked into a wall with that - accept youve let your emotional attachment to the plight of the Chechen people get the better of your reason and move on.

Now I'm off into the kitchen to look for "The teabags" even though there may be teabags elsewhere that I don't own. I know my girlfriend has a small collection of teabags, there may even be teabags not controlled by me or my immediate family. See, context that can't be misinterpreted.

Almost good enough for my new signiature, but not good enough sadly - Ill need something especially offensive to top the reaction Ive got to my current one. Some people just dont appreciate reality:|

arcadegame2004

AG2004 - word of advice - you cannot go around making generalisations about "the russians" and then go around criticising people for talking about "the chechens". To do so makes you look like a fool. Youve walked into a wall with that - accept youve let your emotional attachment to the plight of the Chechen people get the better of your reason and move on.

Well why did the Russians re-elect him then. OOPS. I mean the majority. Why did they majority of Russians vote for Vladimir the Terrible?

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well why did the Russians re-elect him then. OOPS. I mean the majority. Why did they majority of Russians vote for Vladimir the Terrible?

The re-election? Ignoring Chechnya for a moment (which was more important for his first election), there was the 13% flat rate of income tax introduced in period 1 (when the State's spending is worse than useless for ordinary people in almost all circumstances no-one would argue for higher taxes[1]), the state monopoly deregulation and the continuation of privatisation of housing and land. Add in the taking on board of Joe Stiglitz's criticism of the early period of Russia's conversion to a capitalist economy (which frankly was a mess and it was the IMF's fault for being a bunch of plonkers) which after the economic policies were re-tuned to Stiglitz's way of thinking led to the life of the average Russian who lived nowhere near an internal border getting far better and people tend to go for that kind of thing.

I don't like Putin but for most people, after the seeing off of a period of instability that they think might affect them, it's all about the economy, whether they can buy a washing machine, how many roubles they have in their pocket, how many of those the government takes away, whether they can ever afford to buy a house (or more to the point whether they're ever legally allowed to own one), whether they can get an apple without queueing for an hour in the morning to buy it, the possibility of owning a Pepsi bottle with Pepsi in it and all those insignificant things that people spend all their time thinking about. The stability thing. For lots of Russians, Putin succeeded where Yeltsin failed completely and where lots of them think Gorbachev failed them. They felt particularly failed by Yeltsin with all the hope they'd heaped on the guy from 1990ish on (even those Russian dolls you could buy (can't find mine) long before Yeltsin's presidential win with Gorbachev inside Yeltsin made that obvious on the streets even without asking anyone) - Putin gave them apples[2]. Bottom line, half of Rusia felt cheated by Yeltsin.

Putin gave them something they felt they never had before - relative freedom (certainly compared to pre-1990), relative prosperity (certainly compared to pre-1990 and post-1990 as well) and relatively speaking, choices they never had before (I'm not including foreign travel - most ordinary people don't have the money to go anywhere, even to the seaside). I still think Putin is a nationalistic press-controlling nut who thinks the ends are the means and who's surrounded by two groups of idiots (the nationalistic wing and the shower who made money under Yeltsin) who are two steps away from each others throats and happy to invade neighbouring countries and oppress the poor given half a chance but you didn't ask about that. That's why the common folk voted for him the second time. Low taxes, home ownership, Pepsi and apples. They never had those four things before at the same time.

<edit>
It's funny you brought up Cromwell earlier in the thread. Here in Ireland and in Scotland we think of the guy as a grade-A asshole because of all the people he massacred. In England he still made the top 10 of Greatest Britons (voted for by the hoi polloi) because of what his reign (for want of a better word) meant for British democracy. It's like the way that Lord Denning is regarded universally as a dufus in criminal law but regarded as having the architect of a genius in contract law. Now both evaluations are true, but as to which evaluation is more true, it usually depends on the relative extent to which anyone feels affected by one side or the other. And that's the way a lot of people think - no-one ever extended the "would you kill one innocent child for peace prosperity or democracy" question to killing a few thousand or a few hundred thousand when they were in power (given that they weren't and they were people they didn't know).

Whatever about Putin's foreign policy (or far off internal policy for those who look at it that way), whatever about his policy on a free press or lack thereof, the common people (who after all, are always most interested in the wellbeing of themselves and their extended clan[3]) know the guy (in their view) as the man who brought them so much bread that they could eat it and make houses out of it that they could own themselves where before they had nothing and went hungry. You can't win an election against someone like that. Not even if he eats babies with his eggs.
</edit>


[1]And in any case it follows elementary Keynesian economic theory, which is always better for an economy that's worth next to nothing with an immense labour surplus, pretty much without exception and without argument. You can't tax people who have virtually nothing

[2]I know I'm labouring the apple thing but the apple queues really hit me, even though they were crap apples, as well as the way people would carefully wrap up the good fruit provided by those nice Aeroflot folks to have something nice to give the kiddies. I could use "washing machines" instead but you only buy one of those every few years whereas everyone wants apples

[3]And you don't get to criticise a people for looking out for their own wellbeing to the potential detriment of others as you're our resident expert on that. I'm just stating it as fact, I've judged it elsewhere

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

So as long as a poster accepts that their off topic. Any posting is not allowed to be refuted If your so adament about another thread, start it. But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

I *think* this may get me a weeks banning, but what the hey...

Mighty_Mouse, it was not my intention to stifle debate on the issue, I just foresaw the reactions of bonkey and Sceptre above. If anyone feels strongly enough about it, start another thread and I'll try to answer any points put across, or PM me to discuss it privately.

Hope that'll suffice.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Could people here please stop using the definite article when referring to Chechens involved in the terrorist attack in Beslan? It is racist to call them "the Chechens", because it tars an entire race with the same brush.

Practise what you preach!