Is Blair a hypocrite?

flogen

There have been calls lately at Blair to negotiate with the terrorists holding Bigley, as he has already done so with terrorists such as the IRA (although I think his by out clause here is he negotiated with Sinn Fein, and not the IRA, but in reality there were negotiations made between the British gov and the IRA), and that he refusing to do so makes him a hypocrite. Would you agree? Now we can agree that the IRA and Al Quaida are two very different types of terrorist, but they are terror groups nonetheless.

Personally I think it is slightly hypocritical for him to do something like this, although to negotiate with Al Quaida and groups like them would almost certainly lead to them pushing things more. Their will to go further than the IRA and the fact that there are more Islamic terror groups than there are Irish Republican terror groups who all want appeasment would make things much messier than they already are.

flogen

mike65

He's not a hypocrite rather he knows that an end can be achieved talking to the Provos (in whatever fashion) whereas the group that has Bigley are not the kind of ppl anyone can negotiate with, so there is no point in being seen to talk and fail anyway...

Mike.

shotamoose

They're not really comparable situations. Firstly there was an overlap between what the IRA and the British wanted - a reduced British Army presence in Northern Ireland and more self-rule. Secondly, the IRA cause had a fairly significant minority supporting it, and politicians ready to talk. Based on a fairly shallow knowledge of what's going on in Iraq, I don't think any of these apply to the kidnappers and their demands.

Cork

Is Blair a hypocrite?

No. His dealings with Bertie & to the NI situation has shown Tony Blair to be both decent & honourable.

The question here is :

Should elected governments negotaite with terrorists?

I believe, they should not.

Terrorism is a waste of time. It is futile & it achieves precious little.

The situation in Iraq is a mess that has to be solved.

Terrorists don't have solutions. The international community needs to take charge of the situation out there.

I would like if the UN had a role but even the Red Cross seem to be legimate targets to terrorists.

flogen

I'm sorry cork, but while mike and shotamouse have given reason as to why the IRA and Islamic terrorists are different and one can be negotiated with while the other can't, you haven't.
You say that he's not a hypocrite, but he shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Do you believe that should apply across the board, or should negotiations with more "reasonable" (using such a word in the loosest possible sense) groups like the IRA be allowed as progress is attainable with them?

flogen

flogen

mike65 wrote:

He's not a hypocrite rather he knows that an end can be achieved talking to the Provos (in whatever fashion) whereas the group that has Bigley are not the kind of ppl anyone can negotiate with, so there is no point in being seen to talk and fail anyway...

Mike.

Do you not see this stance as hypocritical?
The public policy of the British government (and most western governments) is that they do not negotiate with terrorists, full stop.
If what you say is true, Blair is opperating under the policy of "We do not negotiate with terrorists, unless we can get somewhere with them".

While the two situations are different, as I stated above, if the policy of the government is not to negotiate with terrorists then how can they make acceptions without having to change the rules?

flogen

gandalf

While governments say they will not negotiate with Terrorists I do not believe this statement to be entirely true. Given the right circumstances they will, as with Northern Ireland.

I believe the initial discussions with the IRA were right and necessary. The British Government knew what the IRA wanted they had clear goals and as shotamoose said there is an overlap, the British want to withdraw troops and resources from Northern Ireland as it is a major drain on their economy. The IRA realised that they would never win by military means. I do disagree with them allowing Sinn Fein into positions of power before the IRA disbanded but that looks like it won't matter soon.

With these Islamic extremist Terrorist organisations you do not have this situation. I doubt a large amount of the Iraqi people support them (although if the US keep carrying out precision strikes like today’s in Fallagua that may change!), they are fragmented (this whole Al Quaeda terror threat is bullsh!t, there is no grand terror network!!!) and they have varying different goals. I am half expecting one group to ask the US/UK to "Free Willy". Most of these guys are not Iraqi's who are over there to kill Americans and peddle their perverted version of Islam. No one can negotiate with them .

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

The main and most important distinction between the IRA and groups like
Tawhid wal Jihad is that the IRA/SF were/are a coherant organisation which worked towards a satisfying a particular goal of thier followers that could be met half-way through negotiation and compromise (even if the latter is not admitted), Tawhid wal Jihad on the other hand represent no-one but themselves and they have "demands" which no government could possibly meet. Don't get distracted by the stated aim of freeing women prisoners, these guys belong to a sub-set of Islam which treats women like dirt. If they were released Bigley would still die.

Mike.

bonkey

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the terrorists' demands are not something I believe the British have the authority to grant. They are demanding the release of female prisoners from American controlled prisons - something Mr. Blair can in reality do SFA about.

I still believe there is a slight degree of hypocracy in saying "we do not negotiate with terrorists" when you have done so in the past, but for the above reason (and others), I don't think Blair has much of a choice here.

jc

Tommy Vercetti

bonkey wrote:

I still believe there is a slight degree of hypocracy in saying "we do not negotiate with terrorists" when you have done so in the past, but for the above reason (and others), I don't think Blair has much of a choice here.

I'd be of the opinion that it's a little more than hypocritical to say it when you're in bed with the biggest terrorist of them all, Mr. Bush.

arcadegame2004

Well the IRA and Al Qaeda are very different groups. The IRA is secular, whereas Al Qaeda are theocratic in outlook, and the latter kind of terrorist would obviously be extremely difficult to satisfy in terms of granting their demands. The IRA's demands for a United Ireland probably reflect the majority sentiment on this island if the polls taken on this issue are to be believed (the last one in a newspaper in this country showed 80% in favour in principle). so at least their ultimate aim could be considered mainstream. Unfortunately, Al Qaida's is not and that makes one wonder if there is much point in negotiating with them.

I resent the way in which Western governments have colluded in the exploitation by oppressive regimes of 911 as an excuse to legitimise their oppression of national minorities, on the basis of calling it "part of the US-led war on terror". This has particularly gone far too far with respect to Russia and Chechnya. The killing goes on every day in Chechnya and the West says nothing. Then about 3 times every 2 years there is a terrorist attack in Russia and then of course you have Bertie Ahern/GW Bush/Blair etc. signing books of condolences in the Russian Embassy. Of course they should sign them. But they should also sign books of condolences for the Chechen civilians brutally massacred in the concentration-camp that Russia has turned Chechnya into.

bonkey

Any chance you could stay on topic, rather than using this thread as yet another excuse to dig up your Chechnyan outrage again?

ionapaul

Legend maintains that there is a thread on the Fashion board ('Ponchos: Hot or Not?!!!', a wise man tells me) that Arcadegame managed to slowly manipulate into yet another 'evil-Russians-in-Chechnya' flame war! The ladies didn't know what hit them...:)

the_syco

Just something; there are 2 ladies being held in US prisons (none in the prison stated by the terrorists, tho). One is called Mrs Germ. No doubt on of the scientists.

arcadegame2004

bonkey wrote:

Any chance you could stay on topic, rather than using this thread as yet another excuse to dig up your Chechnyan outrage again?

Well Bonkey, I feel that my references to that issue are relevant to this topic, insofar as Blair has linked Chechen "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Since 911, Bush, Blair and Putin have portrayed all illegal groups committing violence as being part of the faceless phantom called "International terrorism". I was using the Chechen issue to illustrate Blair's hypocrisy in that he has talked to the representatives of armed-separatists in NI but is always prating about "standing shoulder to shoulder blah blah" when backing Putin not talking to "terrorists".

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well Bonkey, I feel that my references to that issue are relevant to this topic, insofar as Blair has linked Chechen "terrorism" to "international terrorism".
...
I was using the Chechen issue to illustrate Blair's hypocrisy in that he has talked to the representatives of armed-separatists in NI but is always prating about "standing shoulder to shoulder blah blah" when backing Putin not talking to "terrorists".

OK - I'm afraid I missed the connection....but in my defence you started by suggesting that there may not be any point in negotiating with the likes of Al Qaeda, and then expect us to deduce that you're actually criticising Bair for coming to the conclusion that you're suggesting might be the reality?

Maybe I'm just getting slow in my old age

As an aside (and a response by PM will be fine, or a short reply in-thread...lets not get sidetracked)...does anyone know whether or not there was anything behind the allegations by the Russians that 10 of the 32 terrorists in Beslan were Arabic, and that many had been trained at Al Qaeda camps? Was it just bluster, or did it ever even get followed up?)

The IRA have not been involved in an active campaign of Terrorism against British held territory since the ceasefire. AQ is currently running operations against the coalition. That's the difference. Governments have a policy of not dealing with Terrorist demands in regards to hostage taking, planting of bombs etc. All actions that are part of an active campaign.

The North & the talks with the IRA are with the aim of resolution. Talks or negotiation with AQ or other terrorist groups at this stage would be capitilation. Theres the difference for me.

Personally, while I disagree with the British involvement in Iraq, I think of Blair as one of the best and most honest politicians I've seen in *my* life. Hypocrite? Nope. Not by my book.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
OK - I'm afraid I missed the connection....but in my defence you started by suggesting that there may not be any point in negotiating with the likes of Al Qaeda, and then expect us to deduce that you're actually criticising Blair for coming to the conclusion that you're suggesting might be the reality?

Well let me put it like this. The IRA called a ceasefire. But the Real IRA then planted a bomb killing 29 in Omagh.

How would you feel if you were told that Omagh was "the Irish" committing terrorism? It's no different from some commentators and persons arguing that Beslan was an attack by "the Chechens". It is a blood-libel to tar all members of an entire race with the label of terrorist, especially given that even the Russian press is claiming that just 10 of the 26 or so hostage-takers were even Chechen. We need to be very careful not to stigmatise an entire race, especially since Britain used to do this to us before we escape their imperial clutches in 1920. As I mentioned in a previous post, the elected President of independent Chechnya before Russian invaded (who is now the Chechen rebel leader) has condemned what happened at Beslan. Let us not automatically take other people's words for what passes as a terrorist. The failure of Blair to draw the distinction between pro-independence militants that target soldiers and the extremists who target children is deeply unfortunate. The old IRA of 1919-21 was also called "terrorists" by the British in 1920 so we need to have a deep consciousness of the parallels between our situation and that of other independence-seeking countries before we automatically accept the cat calling the kettle a terrorist, to paraphrase another simile.

On Iraq more specifically, Yes, if a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are - then talking will probably not do any good. But if there are only 2 women in Coalition custody (and supposedly NONE in Iraqi custody) then I say let them go. They are unlikely to be much of a threat. As far as I am concerned saving the hostage's life has to be the priority, rather than a politician not wanting to lose face.

Originally posted by Klaz
The IRA have not been involved in an active campaign of Terrorism against British held territory since the ceasefire. AQ is currently running operations against the coalition. That's the difference. Governments have a policy of not dealing with Terrorist demands in regards to hostage taking, planting of bombs etc. All actions that are part of an active campaign.

Well I feel that it depends on what the demands are. If the demands of terrorists are reasonable demands that most of world opinion would agree with (though not with the terrorists' methods of acheiving them) then I say please politicians, enough of the slogans and wanting to appear tough. The protection of human-lives has to come first. If Kenneth Bigley is killed, I don't think the Bigley family will consider Blair as blameless in it. In my opinion a Russian withdrawal from Chechnya was a perfectly reasonable demand. The fact that the IRA wanted a United Ireland does not mean a United Ireland should never happen because it is a view that the IRA terrorists hold. I want a United Ireland. Does that make me a terrorist? Of course not! Terrorists and law-abiding citizens can share many objectives but have radically different methods of acheiving them. I am opposed to murdering innocent people, and favour a United Ireland. Does this mean that because the Real IRA etc. want a United Ireland too and are terrorist, that we must prevent it happen so as to be seen as "not giving in to terrorists"? Of course not (in my opinion). Do not judge the goals of all terrorists as being undesirable just because their methods are despicable. A great many ordinary people sometimes share their political-goals, and if those goals are reasonable and agreeing to them can save hostages lives, then I say grant them.

This should not necessarily be seen as "encouraging more terrorism". I have already said that if the terror-group's demands are extreme, e.g. setting up a Taliban-style regime in Iraq, then negotiation with them may be pointless.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

How would you feel if you were told that Omagh was "the Irish" committing terrorism? It's no different from some commentators and persons arguing that Beslan was an attack by "the Chechens".

Or frequent comments from posters named arcadegame2004 about atrocities carried out on Chechens by "the Russians".....

It is a blood-libel to tar all members of an entire race with the label of terrorist, especially given that even the Russian press is claiming that just 10 of the 26 or so hostage-takers were even Chechen.

I'm struggling to find the relevance. Are you claiming that Blair is referring to "the Chechens" as terrorists or something?

We need to be very careful not to stigmatise an entire race,

Yes we do, whether that race be Russian or otherwise.

The failure of Blair to draw the distinction between pro-independence militants that target soldiers and the extremists who target children is deeply unfortunate.

Again - can you show me a reference where Blair has referred to all Chechens as terrorist? Or are you claiming that he has condemned some acts as terrorism that you feel weren't terrorist at all, but legitimate acts of something-that-isn't-terrorism-in-name-but-is-the-exact-same-in-nature?

f a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are

I give up. If you seriously believe that....honestly....there is really no point in trying to continue this discussion. That has to be the most ridiculous explanation I've heard yet for the reason for Al Qaeda's actions - that they want to create chaos as an end in itself.

jc

The old IRA of 1919-21 was also called "terrorists" by the British in 1920 so we need to have a deep consciousness of the parallels between our situation and that of other independence-seeking countries before we automatically accept the cat calling the kettle a terrorist, to paraphrase another simile.

Just as in WW2, "freedom forces" in the Greek Mainland, while acting alongside Allied forces, made acts of rape, pillaging, and destruction of their own people. Let us not groups all freedom fighters as wonderful people fighting for freedom, but rather as multiple groups all capable of acting outside of your & our views.

On Iraq more specifically, Yes, if a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are - then talking will probably not do any good. But if there are only 2 women in Coalition custody (and supposedly NONE in Iraqi custody) then I say let them go. They are unlikely to be much of a threat. As far as I am concerned saving the hostage's life has to be the priority, rather than a politician not wanting to lose face.

And just say that these women are mass-murderers, or child-killers. Should you let them go unpunished to kill again? Saving a hostage's life is a priority within limits. For me the limit is drawn when it releases people that are capable and willing to kill again. One persons life is not worth more than 5 others, just because that person is European or Western.

Well I feel that it depends on what the demands are. If the demands of terrorists are reasonable demands that most of world opinion would agree with (though not with the terrorists' methods of acheiving them) then I say please politicians, enough of the slogans and wanting to appear tough. The protection of human-lives has to come first.

and so you create a precedent that can be expanded to cover most situations. No negotiationing with Terrorists mean that its effectiveness is blunted.

Again, I ask is one Europeans life worth the deaths of multiple others? Do you agree with the release of mass-murderers just to save one European? I certainly don't.

Anyone know for sure, why these women were arrested in the first place? Cause i've heard some very different reasons from many sources, but none very good resources.

Do not judge the goals of all terrorists as being undesirable just because their methods are despicable.

No. I think I will. Their actions have determined the response I'm willing to give. Lethal force. If another group asks for the same, and is willing to fight in a civilised manner, then I'm willing to listen/consider. AQ have stepped outside that boundary.

This should not necessarily be seen as "encouraging more terrorism". I have already said that if the terror-group's demands are extreme, e.g. setting up a Taliban-style regime in Iraq, then negotiation with them may be pointless.

But you are encouraging it. You're basically saying that their methods work in getting what they want. Which means they'll be used more.

arcadegame2004

That has to be the most ridiculous explanation I've heard yet for the reason for Al Qaeda's actions - that they want to create chaos as an end in itself.

Why? Remember the extracts of recorded discussions between AW members that showed they wanted to stir up a civil war in Iraq? AQ need chaos so that a national government is too occupied fighting a civil war to stop AQ operating on their territory.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush. However, those Russians with access to the Internet and/or other sources of information who have known since before the re-election of Fuhrer Vladimir Putin that the Russian army and the FSB are rounding up innocent civilians to be raped/killed/mutilated and yet still voted to re-elect Putin are equally culpable as those Germans who voted for Hitler, in my opinion.

No. I think I will. Their actions have determined the response I'm willing to give. Lethal force. If another group asks for the same, and is willing to fight in a civilised manner, then I'm willing to listen/consider. AQ have stepped outside that boundary.

National governments that slaughter innocent people deliberately are also engaging in terrorism as far as I am concerned. Such governments, including Nazi Germany and the current Russian Government are therefore not morally superior to the Beslan terrorists, especially since all the evidence from Human Rights groups (who have no incentive to make it up) shows that Russia is committing mass extermination against Chechen men, women and children. Oppression can be found to be the root of a hell of a lot of the terrorist problems in the world, including Chechnya and the Palestinian territories. If your only response to terrorism is "lethal force" then you are attacking the symptoms but not stopping the disease since the root causes of the disease remain untreated. That is to say:what drives these people into carrying out such extreme acts? I don't believe most of these people are geneticall born into terrorism. They have obviously had family members and friends butchered by the imperial rulers and this has warped their whole moral judgements. Do not let Ariel Sharon and Putin off the hook here. They are both tyrants and State-terrorism should not be overlooked as a form of terrorism.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush. However, those Russians with access to the Internet and/or other sources of information who have known since before the re-election of Fuhrer Vladimir Putin that the Russian army and the FSB are rounding up innocent civilians to be raped/killed/mutilated and yet still voted to re-elect Putin are equally culpable as those Germans who voted for Hitler, in my opinion.

You say you're not putting them all together, and then in the same sentence, say that they are the same, as long as they have internet access...

And again you're grouping the whole Russian army together as those who are commiting these acts. Can we stop with the generalisations?

And voting for Hitler wasn't such a bad thing. Continuing to support him once the holocaust became known was.

arcadegame2004

You say you're not putting them all together, and then in the same sentence, say that they are the same, as long as they have internet access...

And again you're grouping the whole Russian army together as those who are commiting these acts. Can we stop with the generalisations?

And voting for Hitler wasn't such a bad thing. Continuing to support him once the holocaust became known was.

Look at how the authorities recommended that Colon Yuri Budanov (the only Russian soldier jailed for the murder and rape of a Chechen girl in spite of the evidence that the murder of Chechens by the Russian army is common in Chechnya) be pardoned! What does this remind us of! Sounds familiar to me! No wonder the Chechens hate the Russians so much. And look how Putin has promoted those soldiers at the heart of the massacre-program in Chechnya.

BTW, I am bemused by your claim that voting for Hitler was okay, even before the Holocaust. Remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler stated that he wanted to hang every Polish man, woman and child and exterminate the Jews.

BTW, I am bemused by your claim that voting for Hitler was okay, even before the Holocaust. Remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler stated that he wanted to hang every Polish man, woman and child and exterminate the Jews.

He also stopped common-place starvation, brought medicine back into commonplace, gave employment, made the average german proud to be alive again etc etc etc. Sure you can look at the bad, there's alot of that. Just don't be blinded into thinking he did nothing good. And to germans of the time, the practical bonuses of employment and food, were more important than a book that contained blind aggression towards all things jewish. Remember anti-jewishism was something that Germans were used to for hundreds of years. Hitler was the first to try exterminating them all in Germany.

No wonder the Chechens hate the Russians so much. And look how Putin has promoted those soldiers at the heart of the massacre-program in Chechnya.

I'd assume that some Chechens don't hate the Russians. You're generalising again. The whole Chechen population hasn't taken up arms. There's many/I] who hate the Russian occupation, and Russians themselves. And for each one I'm sure the reason is very personal and distinct from the other person.

And I'm not defending Putin. I'm asking you to stop placing the blame on all of the Russian Army.

meepmeep

I think Blair is right to not negotiate with these terrorists. The reason these women were put in jail in the first place was that they are experts in making chemical and biological weapons and were actually manufacturing anthrax bombs for these terrorist groups.

What else would the terrorists want them for, but to make more of these bombs for their war on the west? So hes left with the option to probably let one man die, or let these women loose to play a part in their "war". I don't think its fair to call him a hypocrite because hes not willing to negotiate here because the negotiations with the IRA were to bring peace. The negotiations here would be to give the terrorists potential weapons in their war of terror.

Its an awful position to be in, but if it was me then i wouldn't negotiate either. This gives the terrorists the green light to carry on kidnapping and threatening to slaughter people unless they get what they want.

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation :cool:

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation

Interrupt away. We're going off topic.

arcadegame2004

meepmeep wrote:

I think Blair is right to not negotiate with these terrorists. The reason these women were put in jail in the first place was that they are experts in making chemical and biological weapons and were actually manufacturing anthrax bombs for these terrorist groups.

What else would the terrorists want them for, but to make more of these bombs for their war on the west? So hes left with the option to probably let one man die, or let these women loose to play a part in their "war". I don't think its fair to call him a hypocrite because hes not willing to negotiate here because the negotiations with the IRA were to bring peace. The negotiations here would be to give the terrorists potential weapons in their war of terror.

Its an awful position to be in, but if it was me then i wouldn't negotiate either. This gives the terrorists the green light to carry on kidnapping and threatening to slaughter people unless they get what they want.

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation :cool:

I know those 2 women were scientists but what evidence have you that they were producting chemical and biologicial weapons for terrorists? Where are these mythical WMDs?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why? Remember the extracts of recorded discussions between AW members that showed they wanted to stir up a civil war in Iraq? AQ need chaos so that a national government is too occupied fighting a civil war to stop AQ operating on their territory.

Yesssss......

all of which shows that chaos is not a goal, but rather a necessary step along the way to achieving a goal.

Which brings me back to what I said....alleging that the chaos is a goal in and of itself is farcical.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush.

Let me see if I understand this...

Going by comments you've made in previous posts (and I will dig up links if you're memory of what you write yoruself is that short) you have :

1) Chastised people for tarring all of a people with hte same brush when they referred to actions by "the Chechens"
2) Chastised Blair for tarring all of a people with the same brush, despite showing no evidence that he has ever even referred to "the Chechens"
3) Referred to "the Russians" repeatedly, (and in the same timeframe as 1 and 2 above) when meaning either "the Russian military", "the Russian government", "some of the Russian people", and vast amounts of other sub-sets of who "the Russians" actually are.

So, apparently when anyone refers to anything in the abstract and they aren't you then they are tarring with the same brush....but when you do it, its clearly different.

Yeah...that seems pretty consistent with your usual style of structuring an argument...

And getting somewhat back on topic....none of this is in any way relevant until you show that Blair - as you've alleged - has been trying to make his "international terrorism" umbrella cover something that clearly isn't related to international terrorism. You've suggested as much about Chechnya, but to date haven't supplied a single incident which wasn't related to Islamic-extremist-originated terrorism which Blair then tried to hook in.

So I go back to my original point...you're using this as a mechanism to rant on about Chechnya rather than addressing the topic at hand. Having asked for the relationship, and subsequently questioned how you make the connection, you haven't answered a single one of those questions. You've given more broad sweeping condemnation, which assumably you level at Blair, without ever bothering to show that he's actually doing the stuff you say he is...

As I said...show me one action carried out by non-terrorist-related groups in Chechnya that Blair has tried to link to international terrorism. If you can't do that, then you really are just using this as an excuse to vent about the Russians again.

jc

mike65

I knew I was right to count myself out of becoming a Mod on this board!;)

Mike.

cleansingfire

I thought that Sinn fein was different from the IRA and that it was Sinn Fein that Blair was negotiating with? When did he negotiate with the IRA? What was the deal on offer?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
As I said...show me one action carried out by non-terrorist-related groups in Chechnya that Blair has tried to link to international terrorism. If you can't do that, then you really are just using this as an excuse to vent about the Russians again.

Well remember back to when Akhmad Kadyrov, the head of the pro-Moscow puppet-government/Vichy regime was killed in a Chechen rebel attack. Now after WW2, Marshall Petain and Pierre Laval (the leaders of the pro-Nazi puppet French government) were sentenced to death (Petain's sentence was communted to life imprisonment due only to his 84 or so years but otherwise he would have been executed) for treason.

Yet I recall hearing Blair referring to this killing in Chechnya as "terrorism".

Kadyrov was installed by a rigged election. He was a traitor and a collaborator. Human Rights groups have frequently condemned the death-squads under Kadyriov's control that would take part in massacres of fellow Chechens, as well storming into villages and towns and demanding, on pain of death, that the local Chechen men join these death-squads.

As such, I consider his killing to be a casualty of war and not terrorism. He committed treason against Chechnya by collaborating with a brutal occupation. Blair and the other Western leaders think differently of course. Blair is no doubt motivated by his puppet-master Bush's wish to gain Russian acquiescence in the establishment of a chain of US bases in former Soviet Central Asia, and doesn't want to upset the apple-cart. The other Western leaders in Europe are occasionally more critical of Russia but this is always very low key. In absolute numbers the number of Chechens slaughtered is vastly out of proportion to the number of Russian civilians killed. Imagine Ariel Sharon multipled by 100. That's Putin!

As such, I consider his killing to be a casualty of war and not terrorism. He committed treason against Chechnya by collaborating with a brutal occupation. Blair and the other Western leaders think differently of course. Blair is no doubt motivated by his puppet-master Bush's wish to gain Russian acquiescence in the establishment of a chain of US bases in former Soviet Central Asia, and doesn't want to upset the apple-cart.

Britain & the US have refused the return of Ilyas Akhmadov and Akhmed Zakayev to Russian Territory. Does this really sound like they're bowing to Russian demands?

Russia is a world power. We're not talking about a pisshead dictator like Saddam. We're talking about a power with a military that is more that most european countries, has Nuclear/Chemical capabilities, and has the experience to use them effectively. And you want the other countries to aggravate Russia? From your other posts abt chechnya you seem to favour military intervention against Russia but fail to realise that the only feasible answer is political pressure, and while Chechen forces continue to act in a manner thats comparable with AQ, thats not going to happen.

In absolute numbers the number of Chechens slaughtered is vastly out of proportion to the number of Russian civilians killed.

So, if the number of Russians murdered by Chechen Terrorists equaled the dead the Chechnya you'd feel better? Ouch!

Imagine Ariel Sharon multipled by 100. That's Putin!

Imagine Arafat by 100, and I get the same image. /shrugs.

But rather than introducing the Palestinian/Israeli issue (Which is a thread all by itself), can you further your point as to why Blair is a hypocrite in reagards to AQ?

arcadegame2004

See my previous post above yours for evidence of Blair's hypocrisy. It is ironic that Western leaders, including Blair, met recently in France to celebrate the expulsion of Nazi Germany from France and the removal of the puppet Vichy Government, while at the same time condemning the killing of the Chechen version of Marshall Petain, Akhmad Kadyrov. Hypocritical even.

Of course we can't intervene militarily in Russia! But the West still has great leverage over Russia in the form of the loans it gives to Russia. These should be withheld until Russia ends the massacres, rapes and mutilation of the Chechen civilians, and allows the Red Cross and other aid agencies into Chechnya.

All Russia is being asked to do is to behave like humans instead of like sickos.

Britain & the US have refused the return of Ilyas Akhmadov and Akhmed Zakayev to Russian Territory. Does this really sound like they're bowing to Russian demands?

Britain and Russia are supposedly working on a UN resolution to prevent "terrorists" abusing asylum-procedures to escape justice. Given that Putin includes the entire Chechen resistance in his definition of "terrorist", I am concerned that the deportation of these two men is a possibility in the future. We should support the elected leaders of Chechnya (i.e. the former Chechen government) and not the Vichy-style puppets. Our politicians should not actively confer legitimacy on the puppets imposed by Moscow.

wheels of ire

Deleted User wrote:

Britain & the US have refused the return of Ilyas Akhmadov and Akhmed Zakayev to Russian Territory. Does this really sound like they're bowing to Russian demands?

Russia is a world power. We're not talking about a pisshead dictator like Saddam. We're talking about a power with a military that is more that most european countries, has Nuclear/Chemical capabilities, and has the experience to use them effectively. And you want the other countries to aggravate Russia? From your other posts abt chechnya you seem to favour military intervention against Russia but fail to realise that the only feasible answer is political pressure, and while Chechen forces continue to act in a manner thats comparable with AQ, thats not going to happen.



So, if the number of Russians murdered by Chechen Terrorists equaled the dead the Chechnya you'd feel better? Ouch!



Imagine Arafat by 100, and I get the same image. /shrugs.

But rather than introducing the Palestinian/Israeli issue (Which is a thread all by itself), can you further your point as to why Blair is a hypocrite in reagards to AQ?

Anyone care to try and give us an all-purpose definition which will cover 'Terroriism' ?
Given the French Maquis, Italian Partigiani, Mandela and Colins,Mandela and the ANC-both specifically condemned as terrorists by Thatcher- are amongst those accused, you'd think readers here might be more aware of the record of those making the accusation.

Were the Contras terrorists?
I only ask.

Of course we can't intervene militarily in Russia! But the West still has great leverage over Russia in the form of the loans it gives to Russia. These should be withheld until Russia ends the massacres, rapes and mutilation of the Chechen civilians, and allows the Red Cross and other aid agencies into Chechnya.

And again, I say that the only people in russia that would be the common Russian person. The Russian government, Putin especially is unlikely to be blackmailed into stopping his current campaign, since they themselves wouldn't be affected.

All Russia is being asked to do is to behave like humans instead of like sickos.

Can you please stop with the massive Generalisations? Its not Russia as a whole. Its a minority. A minority in the Russian Government, and a minority in the Russian Army.

Britain and Russia are supposedly working on a UN resolution to prevent "terrorists" abusing asylum-procedures to escape justice. Given that Putin includes the entire Chechen resistance in his definition of "terrorist", I am concerned that the deportation of these two men is a possibility in the future. We should support the elected leaders of Chechnya (i.e. the former Chechen government) and not the Vichy-style puppets. Our politicians should not actively confer legitimacy on the puppets imposed by Moscow.

Supposedly? Is that a rumour, or something they're actually doing? Regardless, I can't see it being a bad thing, since Britain would have huge involvement in determining whether they are terrorists. It won't be a pure Putin Decision.

Why should we support them? I haven't seen anything to say that they're any better people than the anyone else. I haven't seen them calling for peace. I haven't seen them having any true control over their own "resistance" groups. Regardless, our politicians, i.e. the Irish Government, shouldn't involve themselves with either side, beyond how it affects this country. They're incapable of running our own country, nevermind negotiating a peace between Chechnya and Russia.

I only ask.

It depends on who you ask. For myself, there's two types of terrorists. The name Governments apply to those that resist them (Its a handy way of turning world opinion against them), and those that I consider Terrorists.

I consider general terrorism as being the targeting of Civilian areas, with the intent of creating terror, and causing as much pain/suffering as possible. Examples of Terrorism for me, would be Hamas, Chechen "resistance" targeting Russian civilians (school), AQ sept 11, etc.

terrorism also includes the common wordage, collateral damage that governments love to use. US air strikes, Israeli attacks into Gaza etc. Government based Terrorism.

Thats my view. Alot of people will believe different.

arcadegame2004

I consider general terrorism as being the targeting of Civilian areas, with the intent of creating terror, and causing as much pain/suffering as possible. Examples of Terrorism for me, would be Hamas, Chechen "resistance" targeting Russian civilians (school), AQ sept 11, etc.

terrorism also includes the common wordage, collateral damage that governments love to use. US air strikes, Israeli attacks into Gaza etc. Government based Terrorism.

Under my posts you will see links to reports from Human Rights Watch on what is happening in Chechnya with regard to human rights. You have no criticism of that of course! Do you consider that to be terrorist Yes or No? Are we to hold a view of terrorism that regards resistance to what a nation considers foreign occupation as "terrorism"?

Can you please stop with the massive Generalisations? Its not Russia as a whole. Its a minority. A minority in the Russian Government, and a minority in the Russian Army.

It is NOT a minority of the Russian government. If it was, then why are the Western media banned from access to Chechnya without military supervision and under the conditions that they avoid talking to Chechen civilians? They are clearly hiding something. It is reminiscent to Milosevic when he banned the Western media from Kosovo before he turned Kosovo into a slaughterhouse. The widespread abuses of human rights are clearly organised on a scale that can only mean that they are state-sponsored.

You only have to look at how the disappearances of Chechens has now spread even to Moscow.

Also, the situation in Chechnya needs to be viewed in the context of what is happening generally in Russia under Putin. He has destroyed the free TV media by nationalising them (under the pretext of debts owed). Also a few days ago I say a program on BBC about a journalist from the Russian newspaper Gazeta who was murdered. He had been very critical of a businessman close to Putin, and what it revealed demonstrated the highly likelihood that the man arrested for the murder was being framed. The Russian secret service are also the likely culprit for the murder of a US journalist critical of the war in Chechnya. Two Chechens were arrested for the crime - no doubt a cynical attempt by Putin to further discredit the Chechens. Why would Chechens kill a journalist critical of Putin's war of extermination in Chechnya?

Why should we support them? I haven't seen anything to say that they're any better people than the anyone else. I haven't seen them calling for peace. I haven't seen them having any true control over their own "resistance" groups.

Britain would have used those arguments about the old IRA of 1919-21. We should be the last to fall for colonial propaganda given our own history. Aslan Maskhadov - elected President of Chechnya in 1997 in free and fair (unlike Putin's rigged elections) elections - has condemned the terror attack in Beslan and actually said that Shamil Basayev should be put on trial. He has constantly called for peace talks with the Russians but it goes in one ear and out the other. As far as I am concerned Beslan - while a terrible attrocity - is part of a tit-for-tat situation. If Russia is genuinely concerned about the lives of children then they should stop their mass executions of Chechen children.

gandalf

GET THIS BLOODY CHECHAN CRAP OFF THIS THREAD. LAST WARNING.

You hijack one more thread I will ban you permanently from Politics. Do you understand?

arcadegame2004

Gandalf I will if you want but I brought it up because it is relevant to the issue of whether or not Blair is a hypocrite.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Gandalf I will if you want but I brought it up because it is relevant to the issue of whether or not Blair is a hypocrite.

(a better answer for fairness for us all might have been "OK so")

I'm going to assume my fellow mods are now asleep so...

From wikipedia:

On May 9, 2004, an explosion ripped through VIP seating at a "Dinamo" stadium during a mid-morning Victory Day parade in the capital Grozny, killing Kadyrov, two of his bodyguards, the Chairman of the Chechen State Council, a Reuters journalist, and others, as many as a dozen. 56 others were wounded, including General Valery Baranov, the commander of Russian forces in Chechnya.

It was a big explosion. Now, whether I'd call it terrorism is neither here nor there so let's leave that aside and move on with the mod stuff.

All the other Chechen stuff was rather irrelevant to anythjing approximating relevance but then you knew that. Take the Chechen stuff to your Chechen thread. Or not. Do not pass Go, do not collect £200. That's a pretty serious "no more hijacking" warning from Mr Gandalf above. Heeding it now and forever might be good for your posting health as I'd rather not (as a mod) open, say a thread on the Irish presidency and see it turned into a Chechnya (or otherwise hijacked) thread - it might cause my internal logic unit to explode after pressing the nasty banning button. this isn't anyone's personal playground and I think Gandalf's shown some restraint. Blair's botox ops might be even more relevant than the stuff posted above.

my lips are sealed.