The Religion of Peace in Russia
Hey liberals! You know the Minutemen and revolutionaries who took those Russian schoolchildren hostage?
It will be a good day indeed when the world’s stupid pacifists, leftists, and liberals finally pull their collective head out of their collective ass and recognize the global threat that radical Islamofascism presents to the world. Unfortunately I’m not very confident that that day is going to come any time soon.The three-day hostage siege at a school in southern Russia ended in chaos and bloodshed Friday, after witnesses said Chechen militants set off bombs and Russian commandos stormed the building. Hostages fled in terror, many of them children who were half-naked and covered in blood. Officials estimated the death toll at more than 200.
Early Saturday, 531 people remained hospitalized, including 283 children - 92 of the youngsters in “very grave” condition, health officials said.
Sixty-two hours after the hostage drama began during a celebration marking the first day of the school year, the Russian government said resistance had ended.
Valery Andreyev, Russia’s Federal Security Service chief in the region, said 10 Arabs were among 27 militants who were killed. The ITAR-Tass news agency, citing unidentified security sources, reported the hostage-taking was the work of Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, who had al-Qaida backing. [Emphasis added]
It’s all about the oil, right? Idiots.
Comments
But Russia was against Iraq war!!!
France was against Iraq War!!!
How could this be? It’s almost like the terrorists want to kill us all.Nah,couldn’t be
what Islamic people were the US occupying or subjugating, before Sept 11?
the loss of life inRussia is stunning, terriable little children, who had no hand in the problems that were ongoing in that part of teh worls, were murdered en-mass, by these extermists.. and you hazelnut still dont get it..
hazzel nut, why would they attack little a little nobody like the netherlands, when they already have a huge stake in a growing population base there? that would like be pissing in your own pot.
Think that’s cool? Putin put Russian on lock-down to catch one of the bastards that got away.
Even though the Netherlands is even more liberal… That’s pretty much the dumbest argument I’ve seen here for a week.
This may come to a shock to you, Haze, but terrorists only have finite resources and America is the leader of the free world. What country have the Brits occupied then in recent times? Cause you know - they were planning to attack the UK waaaaay before 9/11.
Lee can crack wise on “It’s all about oil”, but many of us don’t believe that the war in Iraq is related to the war on terrorism, especially since our President doesn’t seem to give a damn about North Korea or Iran, both of which are more serious threats to us. Maybe they’re in the Axis-of-not-quite-so-bad, now.
Chechnya is a former Soviet republic which wanted its independence when the USSR collapsed. They didn’t get that, they were forced to remain under Russian jurisdiction. They’re pissed - they’re the ONLY former Soviet state in this position. Regardless of their cause, it doesn’t make it okay for them to kill children or take hostages in theaters, especially since they seemed to do okay butchering whatever Russian troops got sent in to clear ‘em out, but they’re desperate and clearly a bunch of whackos have decided “Well, let’s go kill their children like they’ve killed ours.”
One wonders how much hold Islamofascism would be in Chechnya if Russia hadn’t insisted on holding on to it. Well, there’ll be a lot more bloodshed before this is over, either way. The Chechnyans have been pissed for a long time. And now the Russian population most likely wants retribution.
If Lee would take his head out of his ass, he might notice that there are different reasons for different crisis. And brute military power might not be the “one-size-fits-’em-all” solution.
This horrible and sickening act of terrorism was partly caused the Russian policy in Chechnya. When this crisis started back in the 1990s there was no “islamofacism” in Chechnya. Unrest causes more extremism. (Some very good links in this previous thread.)
You’ve got to keep your head cool. Everything isn’t islamofacism, and every terrible act of islamic terror does not represent the whole of islam or the opinion of majority.
CinaJ:
Chechnya is a former Soviet republic which wanted its independence when the USSR collapsed. They didn’t get that, they were forced to remain under Russian jurisdiction. They’re pissed - they’re the ONLY former Soviet state in this position.
Lee:
It’s all about the oil, right?
Now, why would Russia want to keep a fiercely independent people under it’s jurisdiction? They are just 1,2 million, land area is quite small, people are poor…
Interestingly Chechnya is rich in oil...
ThinkTankDeluxe, what you fail to note is that the chances are many of those responsible for this might have been more concerned with fighting Jihad. The 9/11 hijackers could easily have ended up in Chechnya. I’m hearing all sorts of things including the possibility of Arab mercenaries or Jihadists.
And some Muslims have wished Chechnya an Islamic State since 1858. Chechnya was a destination for Islamists long before 9/11. It is in both our interests to see all Islamists killed in Chechnya and this situation which you describe above resolved. It is also in our interest and any genuine Liberal to see an end to Islamic States across the globe.
And some Muslims have wished Chechnya an Islamic State since 1858. Chechnya was a destination for Islamists long before 9/11. It is in both our interests to see all Islamists killed in Chechnya and this situation which you describe above resolved. It is also in our interest and any genuine Liberal to see an end to Islamic States across the globe.
In the 19th century (And most of the 20th too) the indenpendence struggle by the Chechnyan has more to do with the concept of nationalism than islamism. The traditional form of islam there is Sufi, which is ("relatively") peaceful and un-political. The Wahhabitic movement “islamofacism” is historically young and also unpopular in Chechnya.
I just found this russian text, that says this about Chechnyan reaction to wahhabites:
Notably, Chechnya’s residents had largely refused to align with the “Wahhabites” or back up their criminal activities. The general public perception then was that the “Wahhabites” had mostly included the scum of society, drug addicts, youngsters from bad families and other degraded elements. The “Wahhabites” would be driven out of the local rural communities with the following words: “You can practice your ways elsewhere, but not in our community!” To provide an example, B. Khaikhoroyev, one of the “Wahhabite” leaders and a noted field commander, was killed by his fellow-villagers in the summer of 1999 exactly for engaging in kidnapping operations (21)
Also although the Islamic State is as old concept as the religion (The Ottoman empire was considered to be a continuum of Muhammed’s empire.) it is worth while to note that the islamic state in it’s present form (Iran/Taleban Afghanistan) is quite new concept. What we Liberals should hope for is that a peaceful set of countries would be established in the Middle East based on the values and teachings of Islam, but run by elected government, not clerics. Like the US/EU is based upon christian (and secular enlightment) values but not run by the clergy.
“ One wonders how much hold Islamofascism would be in Chechnya if Russia hadn’t insisted on holding on to it. “
Yes, one does wonder. If they had gained their independence, it would still likely be as unstable as it is today, so what difference would it make?
That’s all very interesting Think Tank but it really doesn’t change a whole hell of alot. They’re still dealing with extremists who have proven they can’t be persuaded or bargained with. Much like the Wahabists, they collect in the unstable areas and fester.
special thanks to think tank for bringing so much sense and information to this pages!
Yes, one does wonder. If they had gained their independence, it would still likely be as unstable as it is today, so what difference would it make?
likely? anything but your estimate to back that up?
don t you think that an outside enemy makes their task slighly eassier?
Yes, one does wonder. If they had gained their independence, it would still likely be as unstable as it is today, so what difference would it make?
Your guess is as good as anybody’s, I guess. Still, without the wars it might be more on the path that, for example, Georgia has taken. And extreme islam would certainly not have the kind of influence it has today.
So Jon, the real question is how we stabilize a region without causing more wars, violence and chaotic circumstances, isn’t it? IMO the Russians don’t seem to have a clue.
There has been some talk of “internationalising” the effort. That would mean negotiations with the Chechnyan elected president (not the current Moscow’s puppet) and perhaps peace-keepers from the EU and US, preferably under an UN mandate. Kosovo/Bosnia is good example of an international effort. (Although years too late.)
My bet though is that the Russian government willl never admit it’s mistakes and never allow foreign troops to enter Checnya.
Yes thinktank of course its the Russian governments fault that over 100 school children and over 350 people total are now dead.
Its funny I dont remember the American “minutemen” of yore killing the children of the English wholesale, but if they had, it would’ve definitely been the fault of England.
God your such a pussy!
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!! Observe the evidence:
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistency with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively t! o the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”- Letter to Pres. Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry(D-MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building
weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in ! his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability,
and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with! weapons of mass destruction is real”- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003
the Netherlands is even more liberal… for some reason they don’t attract the ire of Islamofacistradicals
That’s partly because, being as you say “even more liberal,” they’re likely to surrender their country without a fight. No need for terrorist assaults.
Lee can crack wise on “It’s all about oil”, but many of us don’t believe that the war in Iraq is related to the war on terrorism
Many of you are beyond the reach of evidence or common sense. Since context seems to indicate that you think it IS “all about the oil,” then you’re stuck with the task of trying to explain why we supposedly “invaded” Iraq to take their oil, when we could have bought it at any time simply by lifting our sanctions!
our President doesn’t seem to give a damn about North Korea or Iran
So you slept through the 2003 State of the Union address, in which he listed these two very nations along with Iraq as components of the Axis of Evil? Funny you missed that; it caused considerable sniggering among your fellow libbies at the time. You use the word “seem” as libbies often do: as a magic word to obscure a lack of evidence. You can bet that the administration has some pretty clear ideas about what to do with North Korea and Iran, but they don’t see the need to check with you for your approval.
Interestingly Chechnya is rich in oil...
Guess what, Sherlock? So is Russia.
a peaceful set of countries would be established in the Middle East based on the values and teachings of Islam
That’ll be the day. Before Big Mo’ became a freelance prophet, he was a warrior. He continued to be a warrior afterward. He saw nothing whatsoever wrong with spreading Koranic rule by the use of the sword. Spreading the Gospel by violence or coercion is a corruption of Christianity. Spreading Koranic rule in this way is classic Islam, Islam as it was born, Islam as it was taught by Mo’, and Islam taken to its logical conclusion.
SharpTurn, your in the wrong thread.
EdKline. How hard is it to understand that I can oppose actions of the Chechnyan terrorists who kidnapped and murdered innocent children and the actions of the Russian government at the same time.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to you Americans that the Russian “semi-democracy” led by a former KGB agent might not be the shining beacon of freedom, democracy and human rights. They have made catastrophic miscalculations, and one consequence of their actions is the rise of Chechnyan terrorism.
So, in a nut shell:
kidnapping and killing children: wrong
creating more chaos with a miscalcuted military effort: wrong
Get it?
Interestingly Chechnya is rich in oil…
Guess what, Sherlock? So is Russia.
So?
BrainOPower: Egypt?
creating more chaos with a miscalcuted military effort: wrong
The fool, or the fool who follows him.
Simple reality: The person who willfully created the situation is the one who is wrong.
Murders took hundreds of children hostage and threatened to murder them if other murderers weren’t released from justice.
Their cause was wrong.
The Russians were trying to get them freed without releasing criminals back into the public where they could kill again.
Their cause was right.
It’s not much harder than that.
That’s partly because, being as you say “even more liberal,” they’re likely to surrender their country without a fight. No need for terrorist assaults.
you re trying to say that terrorists are looking for tough opponents, while the US is striking when their foe is weak?
trying to explain why we supposedly “invaded” Iraq to take their oil, when we could have bought it at any time simply by lifting our sanctions!
and paied in EURO???
Interestingly Chechnya is rich in oil…
Guess what, Sherlock? So is Russia.
following your line of argument, iraqs attack on kuweit wasn t about oil either, obviously?
so was it operation “kuweiti freedom” then?
kidnapping and killing children: wrong
creating more chaos with a miscalcuted military effort: wrong
seconded.
The Russians were trying to get them freed without releasing criminals back into the public where they could kill again.
Their cause was right.
It’s not much harder than that.
it isn t, when you ignore the years of suffering by the chechnyan ppl.
he was obviously not speaking about the botched rescue attempt, but about the state terrorism that is going on with support of the US.
Aaron. You willfully misunderstand me.
I was referring to the larger issue of the Checnyan unrest. It is largely caused by the war there. As simple as that. And as I said, the terrorist were responsible and wrong this unfortunate episode. Please, do attack my reasoning, but don’t twist my words.
so, Lee, what’s your solution? Nuke all of the middle east until every desert is turned into glass? (which would actually be kinda cool..)
Aslan Maskhadov, chief of staff of the Chechen forces, was elected president early in 1997 but appeared to have little control over the republic. In 1999, Islamic law was established. Terrorism, including a series of bombings in Moscow, erupted again, and after Islamic militants invaded neighboring Dagestan from Chechnya, Russian forces bombed and invaded Chechnya, capturing Grozny and forcing the rebels into mountain strongholds.
After Islamic Law was established, terrorism rose? gee who woulda thunk that? Maybe that’s why Russia won’t allow Chechens autonomy in true fashion. For the same reason the US could no longer allow Afghanistan’s Taliban to be autonomous when they gave aid and support to terrorists like OBL and Al Queda.
~me
“So you slept through the 2003 State of the Union address, in which he listed these two very nations along with Iraq as components of the Axis of Evil?”
Actually, I did hear that. You however seem to have stuck your head in the sand. Here, mull on this:
Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry’s argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North’s growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
He said that in North Korea’s case, and in Iran’s, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not “tolerate” nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by “tolerate.”
“I don’t think you give timelines to dictators,” Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea’s president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran’s mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
You don’t GIVE timelines to dictators? Isn’t that EXACTLY what he did to Iraq? Tell me this isn’t a huge double-standard. For some reason, we invaded Iraq, and Bush’s current attitude seems to state “Oh, it wasn’t about the supposed WMD.”
hazehead:Even though the Netherlands is even more liberal…
Your point?
CinaJ:Lee can crack wise on “It’s all about oil”, but many of us don’t believe that the war in Iraq is related to the war on terrorism, especially since our President doesn’t seem to give a damn about North Korea or Iran, both of which are more serious threats to us.
You don’t wanna believe the truth, fine.
But, establishing a foothold for freedom in one of the most oppressed areas on earth is something that will help.
Unlike being a liberal whining blindman.
And, as to North Korea? The coalition can’t be everywhere at once.
And, if you liberals would get behind the fight on terror instead of attacking our countries, every single day, with some diseased conspiracy or another, then we might be able to go into North Korea, and Iran, sooner.
But, I’m thinking you’re not gonna do that, since liberals pretty much seem incapable of thinking independently.
CinaJ: Chechnya is a former Soviet republic which wanted its independence when the USSR collapsed. They didn’t get that, they were forced to remain under Russian jurisdiction. They’re pissed - they’re the ONLY former Soviet state in this position.
I couldn’t care a less if they don’t have full autonomy from Russia, or whether they feel religiously oppressed, the moment you take children, any cause you’re fighting for is not only wrong, but has signed its death warrant.
The moment a child is threatened, these retards, blinded by zealous fanaticism and islamic fervour, becomes monsters.
CinaJ: One wonders how much hold Islamofascism would be in Chechnya if Russia hadn’t insisted on holding on to it.
You mean, like all those other good, democratic, free islamic countries?
ThinkTankDeluxe: If Lee would take his head out of his ass, he might notice that there are different reasons for different crisis. And brute military power might not be the “one-size-fits-’em-all” solution.
Who ever said it was a one size fits all solution, aside from a presumptuous liberal?
ThinkTankDeluxe: This horrible and sickening act of terrorism was partly caused the Russian policy in Chechnya.
As I’ve said, I couldn’t care if it was caused by this, a dislike of Putin or a butterfly effect, anytime you take children, the rules change.
You immediately lose.
Personally, I would of let the hostage takers know, clearly, that if one child gets hurt, just one, then Grozny gets levelled, Chechnya gets annexed and muslim persecution will become state law.
Any hostage situation is bad.
But when you take children, the rules change, so that for every second they have them hostage, their “cause” is being destroyed.
(Part Two)
ThinkTankDeluxe: When this crisis started back in the 1990s there was no “islamofacism” in Chechnya.
There has always been islmo-fascism.
ThinkTankDeluxe: Everything isn’t islamofacism, and every terrible act of islamic terror does not represent the whole of islam or the opinion of majority.
Noone said it was, except a liberal.
ThinkTankDeluxe: Interestingly Chechnya is rich in oil...
Chechnya is rich in oil, isn’t infested with islamo-fascists and capitalist countries want to take.
I’m actually laughing out loud, at your stupidity.
I wanted you to know that.
ThinkTankDeluxe: What we Liberals should hope for is that a peaceful set of countries would be established in the Middle East based on the values and teachings of Islam, but run by elected government, not clerics.
You liberals can hope and whine all you want, but the stark reality is these regimes are not going to change unless they are forced.
Its that simple.
So, you can rant and rave all you want about it being about oil, or about nationalism, or it being about religious intolerence, but the simple fact, that you seem desperate to complicate, is that these regimes will never listen to you, or your ilk.
But, they will listen to Bush.
ThinkTankDeluxe: Like the US/EU is based upon christian (and secular enlightment) values but not run by the clergy.
Not to start another round with Starving Writer, but that is just one of the massive differences between Christianity and Islam.
Seed of Doubt: likely? anything but your estimate to back that up?
Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (prior to the liberation), Iraq (prior to the liberation)
Left to islam, countries typically follow the path to theocracy, dictatorship, religious intolerence, brutality and tyranny.
(Part Three)
ThinkTankDeluxe: They have made catastrophic miscalculations, and one consequence of their actions is the rise of Chechnyan terrorism.
OK, you keep pushing for this national pride approach, and the fact that its Russians holding onto their land that motivates these atrocities?
Fine.
Just one question.
How many “freedom fighters”, in any other struggle for national independace, wear explosive vests?
ThinkTankDeluxe: Get it?
We do.
Some don’t.
Seed of Doubt: and paied in EURO???
Conspiracy theories and rantings from a liberal, with a name like seed of doubt?
What are the odds?
Allow me to enlighten you. Saddam saying he wanted to trade in Euro oil stocks would of financially crippled his illegal money scam, considering the largest buyer of oil is America. America would of embargoed Iraq, pressured OPEC to exclude Saddam, at least until he quit trying to push for the Euro stock change, and laughed while France and Russia, who were complicit in the Oil For Food scandal, which we suprisngly haven’t heard much about, considering it involves the U.N., were left with only one place to actually buy oil, in Euros.
The same place they legally weren’t allowed.
Seed of Doubt: it isn t, when you ignore the years of suffering by the chechnyan ppl.
And the fact you think that, shows you as the deluded, stupid, dangerous zealot you are showing yourself to be.
ThinkTankDeluxe: I was referring to the larger issue of the Checnyan unrest. It is largely caused by the war there.
Which is caused, at least partly, by islamo-fascism.
A fact you’re unwilling to accept.
CinaJ: You don’t GIVE timelines to dictators? Isn’t that EXACTLY what he did to Iraq?
No that would of been Clinton.
And, having shown Iran and North Korea that there it was willing to use force, Bush has shown that they cannot keep hiding.
And what cracks me up, is that liberals can say they want the President to use more diplomatic measures on one hand, attack that he should be using force on another, and not see the hypocrisy.
“Bush has shown that they cannot keep hiding.”
Um. No, Bush has shown that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as he boast about liberating Afghanistan and Iraq.
Um. No, Bush has shown that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as he boast about liberating Afghanistan and Iraq.
What exactly do you mean Cina? Cite examples of them doing whatever they want.
Posted by CinaJ on 09/04 at 08:27 PM
“Bush has shown that they cannot keep hiding.”
Um. No, Bush has shown that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as he boast about liberating Afghanistan and Iraq.
You mean like how Clinton SOLD or approved light water reactors for North Korea in exchange for Ill Kim Sung not going CRAAAAAZZZEEEE!!!?
Wasn’t North Korea the one who was now claiming they were secretly building a nuclear enrichment program for the specific purpose of building bombs?
Which they are trying to sell to Iraq (aka Saddam Hussein) and other Middle Eastern countries?
Yeah ok…
~me
So many nitwits to correct; so little time.
ThinkTankDeluxe:
So?
My point, cretin, is that oil-rich Russia needn’t invade Chechnya for oil. Try to keep up.
Egypt?
Non-sequitur? (Look it up. I’ll wait.)
Seed of Doubt:
and paied in EURO???
We would do that why, exactly?
iraqs attack on kuweit wasn t about oil either, obviously?
Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, far as any sane person can guess, was about Saddam’s megalomania. (Look it up. I’ll wait.)
CinaJ:
Actually, I did hear that.
Oh, you just chose to ignore it. Thanks for that admission.
in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times
“All the news that’s fit to slant.” The very source renders the entire rest of this blurb unreliable unto irrelevance.
You don’t GIVE timelines to dictators? Isn’t that EXACTLY what he did to Iraq?
Actually, that’s what he did with the U.N.: he gave them all the time in the world to enforce the sanctions they had imposed and carry out the consequences they (including France) had threatened. Finally, it was time’s-up, not just for Saddam, but for the U.N., which has proved itself irrelevant not only to America’s sovereignty and security, but to its own purpose of preserving world peace.
Tell me this isn’t a huge double-standard.
Done: It isn’t. Happy now?
For some reason, we invaded Iraq,
For a list of excellent reasons, we liberated Iraq. I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the patience to continue trying to educate the willfully ignorant.
Bush’s current attitude seems to state
That word again. No facts, just “seems.”
See you ninnies on re-election day.
I think the leftists here are over hyping Chechnya’s rich oil reserves. As evidenced by TTD’s google search which pulls up leftists sites stating it’s all about the oil. Sure, there is some reserves, but when you look at the map of the Caucasus region. You’ll see that Chechnya is a shitty little land locked area relatively far away from the Caspian Sea where the real money is for oil and gas. Russia’s claim to to oil and natural gas there is 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Compare that with the total of Russia’s claims on oil are estimated 150 billion barrels of oil and 150 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Now, couple that with Darkstar’s reference that Chechen rebels invaded Dagestan, where nearly all Russia’s Caspian oil and gas investment occurs, you’d have to wonder who’s really fighting to plunder oil and gas?
Update: Putin is really pissed.
Personally, I would of let the hostage takers know, clearly, that if one child gets hurt, just one, then Grozny gets levelled, Chechnya gets annexed and muslim persecution will become state law.
For your information, Groznyi was leveled in 1994 and before it could be rebuilt it was destroyed even more in 1999. Some Russian officials were caught saying that they are not interested to see Groznyi rebuilt. Hey! That’s the way to get local support!
DarkWolf: After years of war the former “rebels” have splintered in to a huge array of small cells, that all have different methods, different objectives and different morals. It would be idiotic to claim that [b]all[/] Chechnyan bare responsibility for these inhuman acts. The solution you seem to be offering is de facto ethnic cleansing.
My point, cretin, is that oil-rich Russia needn’t invade Chechnya for oil. Try to keep up.
My point, dumbass, is that more oil is more oil, thus more profits. Their reserves are relatively small if compared to all reserves of Russia, but they are still very significant. (Last time I checked Russia was still the largest counrty in the world.)
Which is caused, at least partly, by islamo-fascism.
A fact you’re unwilling to accept.
So what we have is a nice down-ward spiral of violence. I have to remind you that there are over 200 000 refugees from Chechnya as a direct consequence of the wars started by russia.
This is a large crisis that has been going on for years. I am sorry to see CNN, Fox etc. report on it only after these acts of terrorism. (Some of the coverage even in the American Media has been quite balanced, there should be no blank-cheque absolution for Putin.) I have been reading on this crisis for years on a regular basis. The human rights abuses of the Russian military are numerous and horrible.
The way the Russians are fighting this war is not a making things better, the situation has been detoriating ever since the first war. There is no “end” in sight unless people (on both sides) swallow their pride and international pressure is put on the Russian government to act more humanly.
And for those you who are going to knee-jerk on the previous paragraph ("You don’t act humanly on inhuman terrorists! You can’t negotiate with terrorists! ...) I just would like to say any terrorist act is not an excuse for the Russians for unlimited military action. There are civilians (about 1 million of them), that are going to be hurt the most by more fighting.
But, establishing a foothold for freedom in one of the most oppressed areas on earth is something that will help.
like in freedom of press? al jazeera ban
Anyway, there are no grounds under the interim constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech) for the government to close the offices of a news organization
from link
mr cole has this great informations about first “democratic” results in iraq:
Jawad al-Maliki, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Shiite) - 56
Hamid Majid Moussa, Communist Party, - 55
Rasim al-Awadi, Iraqi National Accord (Allawi’s Party) - 53
Nasir A`if al-Ani, Iraqi Islamic Party (Sunni) - 48
......Communists, Islamists and ex-Baathist nationalists....
well done!
anyone looking forward to elections in “january”?
anyone expecting them to happen? happen fairly and without chaos?
happen then, because of any other reason than the polish troops finally wanting to depart from this doomed enterprise?
I couldn’t care a less if they don’t have full autonomy from Russia, or whether they feel religiously oppressed, the moment you take children, any cause you’re fighting for is not only wrong, but has signed its death warrant.
no child was hurt during the war on chechnia, i conclude then?
or did your outrage hit the russians before you shifted blame to the terrorist?
what s the solution, now that both sides of the conflict obviously have signed their death warrant?
shall i finally press that red buttton, sir?
jon said:
Yes, one does wonder. If they had gained their independence, it would still likely be as unstable as it is today, so what difference would it make?
i answered:
Seed of Doubt: likely? anything but your estimate to back that up?
and brought drak wolf to this answer:
Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (prior to the liberation), Iraq (prior to the liberation)
Left to islam, countries typically follow the path to theocracy, dictatorship, religious intolerence, brutality and tyranny.
i d like you to point out which of the countries in that list, (apart from afghanistan perhaps) is or was as unstable as chechnya is today.
actually, the only sense making argument is, that the only countries with a similarrily unstable situation are afghanistan and iraq today
the list of country “features” listed below that makes little sense as well. apart from dictatorship they apply in very different ways to the different countries named.
Allow me to enlighten you. Saddam saying he wanted to trade in Euro oil stocks would of financially crippled his illegal money scam, considering the largest buyer of oil is America. America would of embargoed Iraq, pressured OPEC to exclude Saddam, at least until he quit trying to push for the Euro stock change, and laughed while France and Russia, who were complicit in the Oil For Food scandal, which we suprisngly haven’t heard much about, considering it involves the U.N., were left with only one place to actually buy oil, in Euros.
again, i posted my comment about paying oil in euros after someone had cleverly pointed out, that the US could have simply “bought the oil”.
reading is not your strong side, is it?
are you mr cheney or why do you exactly know what the US would have done?
embargoing iraq, btw, is not “simply buying”, is it?
And the fact you think that, shows you as the deluded, stupid, dangerous zealot you are showing yourself to be.
i see, pointing out that bad stuff has happened in chechnya befiore makes me a dangerous zealot.
your plans of levelling crosny, muslim persecution and annexation are perfectly legitimate, reasonable ones?
me, the zealot, puzzled.
And what cracks me up, is that liberals can say they want the President to use more diplomatic measures on one hand, attack that he should be using force on another, and not see the hypocrisy.
ho hypocrisy at all. most liberals don t want any attacks at all. ppl just wonder over his priority list, and would prefer real problems to be solved first.
too much to ask for?
In this morning’s papers here in Europe was a couple of pages coverage of the crisis and the act in question. (Only in finnish and under subsription, I’ll give you an overview.)
The reasoning behind the act was questioned? Everybody knew that there would be revenge upon the Chechnyans because of this. it wouldn’t help the rebels cause. Why was this done? And very importantly by whom? Those behind the Moscow attacks and also those behind the downed planes have denied any involvement in this attack.
Also Putin’s reaction was reported. He called for more police and military actions. Also he called for an end to corruption. That would be really good news.
Interestingly the reaction’s of the Arabic world were also cowered. The highest Islamic leader in Egypt called those who kidnap children as criminals, not muslims. Too rarely heard self-criticism was also heard: The head of al-Arabija-television, Abdulrahman al-Rashed, wrote in the Asharq al-Awsat -magazine that “Our Terrorist sons are a product of our corrupted culture.” and that “muslims cannot clear their reputation if they/we (sorry for my translation) don’t acknowledge the fact that most terrorists are muslims.” The kidnapping was condemned all over the Arabic world. “These acts hurt Islam’s image more than our enemies could.
Self-criticism in the Arabic world, a good sign perhaps?
Also in the same paper was a interview of a documentarist, Pirjo honkasalo, whose brand new documentary on Chechnyan children premieres next week in Venice. The accounts she gives are horrible to read.
For example: an 11-year old boy and his mother escaped to Ingushia, but came back for the funeral of the boy’s father. During the funeral the Russians came, gathered all the men, and executed them.
Another example, directly involved with terrorism. A woman’s brother, father and uncle were murdered byt the Russians. Then the woman’s 11-year old daughter was raped and killed by Russian soldiers. After that she went to a theatre in Moscow…
Also she tells that the Russians summarily break in to houses during the night and “kidnap"/arrest people. The next day a reward is asked. Depending on the sum you pay you get your relative back either dead or alive.’
The Russian military is corrupt and ineffective. There is no excuse for these atrocities. I might add that the civilian deaths in the 1994 war alone were about 27 000. There’s a bunch of children in that too. Simple body counts are not a measure who is “right” and who is “wrong” in a conflict like this.
Repeat: Killing and kidnapping: wrong
iraqs attack on kuweit wasn t about oil either, obviously?
Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, far as any sane person can guess, was about Saddam’s megalomania. (Look it up. I’ll wait.)
character traits make wonderfull explanations!
but wouldn t a megalomaic person have chosen a different target than tiny kuwait?
why not attack nato member turkey? saudi arrabia? cross syria and strike at israel? bomb russia?
@ mishu:
thanks for the links. your post at least makes kind of sense, though you fail to see the implications.
I think the leftists here are over hyping Chechnya’s rich oil reserves.
and i think that the righties are oversimplifieing the “it s all about oil” argument to a picture of US soldiers or company employes running away with half full barrels of oil, while the war is still raging.
instead it s a metapher, used for the idea of getting
strategic control over regions with important resources.
now consider for a second the implications of this one in your own words:
Chechen rebels invaded Dagestan, where nearly all Russia’s Caspian oil and gas investment occurs, you’d have to wonder who’s really fighting to plunder oil and gas?
and factor in, what effect letting one province go, might have on other “rich” ones.
lee obviously had not the slightest clue how right he was when he wrote:
It’s all about the oil, right?“Idiots.”
and finally:
Personally, I would of let the hostage takers know, clearly, that if one child gets hurt, just one, then Grozny gets levelled, Chechnya gets annexed and muslim persecution will become state law.
and you don t think that among those “dangerous zealots”, you wouldn t find a single one who would take advantage of this, slaugther a kid and let you do
their fucking real work????
well done!
Whether or not Mr Cole is being truthful or not, what matters is VOTING was involved, as troubling as the outcome might be. Mr. Cole seems to have a problem with Al Jihad being banned which suggests questionable reasoning.
too much to ask for?
Iran has a home-grown democratic movement and many (dismissed) moderates; there is hope. Iraq had no chance of liberating itself. Iran also has diplomatic ties with Great Britain for what good they are. North Korea has no natural resources to keep itself going without outside assistance, unlike Iraq. North Korea at the end of the day needs to comply or it will starve and crumble (even more so) or its own. They are also surrounded by friendly China, Japan and South Korea.
Saddam also, unlike these two countries, used WMD – (he didn’t just have them, or want them for a deterrent, he USED them). Saddam has also been seen as a man to not make intelligent decisions – he is unpredictable.
North Korea and Iran, unless I’m mistaken, have not pursued biological or chemical weapons in recent times (or have they?) nuclear weapons are arguably easier to keep in check and ensure they don’t fall into terrorist hands.
Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, far as any sane person can guess, was about Saddam’s megalomania. (Look it up. I’ll wait.)
Flat up wrong. The Invasion of Kuwait had numerous reasons behind it. And you can learn all of them in his metting with Glaspie.
Saddam invaded Kuwait for multiple reasons.
1. He considered Kuwait to be the ‘lost 13th province’. This has to do with things that occured before the British partioned the mid east.
2. The Kuwaiti’s were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Is this true? I don’t know, but all that matters is if Saddam thought it was true.
3. He needed extra money resources after the Iran-Iraq war left his country decimated. Gaining oil is a good way to do that.
4. The Kuwaiti’s were dumping a ton of oil onto the market which caused the price to drop substantially. Needless to say this made it more difficult for Saddam to export oil.
When oil is your ONLY export, anything that threatens that export threatens your country. And he needed a ton of money to rebuild after the war, and Iraq is not capable of throwing their country into debt at the scale America can. Mainly because a large number of currencies around the world are not backed in Dinars, they’re backed in dollars. As well as the entire oil trade being traded in dollars, not dinars.
Some libs have questioned why we haven’t gone after North Korea and Iran since they have Nuclear capabilities and enrichment programs.
With North Korea, the US, China and other Asian countries have been in talks with North Korea’s leader to try and talk him out of his nuclear ambitions. I assume they haven’t given up all hope yet as we are still in talks with him. He’s crazy, bordering on stupid but we still have hopes he won’t doing anything really rash like launch a nuke at the US. The consequences would be devastating for him.
With Iran, we need to covertly support the resistance in Iran. Most students and youth in Iran are eager to overturn the Mullahs rule, establish a more secular government and re-establish ties with America. All American should do is support this movement. If Iran goes nuclear without Israel doing anything about it, then we need to make sure this happens and we recover all the nukes. Nuke weapons in the hands of crazy people like those who committed the Russian operation would be REALLY bad!
~me
You know, it really gets me, how libtards claim the world isn’t “black and white”, and then have the freaking NERVE to come up with this “why didn’t you attack North Korea or Iran first then?” BS. They REALLY should listen to their own rhetoric.
On top of this, PICK UP A FUCKING MAP. Put your finger on Iraq and then look at all the different countries around it. THERE WE GO.
Chechnya is a former Soviet republic which wanted its independence when the USSR collapsed. They didn’t get that, they were forced to remain under Russian jurisdiction. They’re pissed - they’re the ONLY former Soviet state in this position. Regardless of their cause, it doesn’t make it okay for them to kill children or take hostages in theaters, especially since they seemed to do okay butchering whatever Russian troops got sent in to clear ‘em out, but they’re desperate and clearly a bunch of whackos have decided “Well, let’s go kill their children like they’ve killed ours.”
One wonders how much hold Islamofascism would be in Chechnya if Russia hadn’t insisted on holding on to it. Well, there’ll be a lot more bloodshed before this is over, either way. The Chechnyans have been pissed for a long time. And now the Russian population most likely wants retribution.
Are you saying then that for example because Lincoln refused to let the Union fraction the South should have done this kind of shit? I hated the USSR as much as anyone that understood the evil it was. I at one time might have even felt sympathy for the Chechnyans and their plight. That is till the day they resorted to terrorism and brutal killings of civilians to get what they wanted. On that day I simply could have cared less if the nuked Chechnya.
Only an idiot tries to defend the indefensible. And deliberately targeting and killing children or innocent civilians, whatever noble cause you claim, is indefensible. I don’t give a rat’s ass what your cause is you deserve nothing but scorn and death. Monsters use this tacitc.
Idiots like CinaJ don’t understand that all these ifs they claim would have made it better or removed one of the causes these criminals claim they are fighting for are nothing but dumb speculation. Not to mention plain wrong. These fanatics want to force Islam under their rule on the world. Period. If not Chechnya or Iraq, they would be fighting in another place.
Even though the Netherlands is even more liberal… for some reason they don’t attract the ire of Islamofacistradicals...
The reason is simple: they target and fight those they know will fight back rather than bow to the yoke of Islam. These monsters have already figured the Europeans lack any will to fight them when the shit hits the fan. They laugh at your pacifist ideals and thank Allah for your stupidity. They have invaded your countries as émigrés, refused to assimilate, and grow at a rate 5 times that of the indigent population. In a couple of decades they will win a democratic election, force an Islamic state upon you, and slaughter the sheep that will try to talk em out of it or oppose them. Those that fight will be so few and far apart that it will make no difference. Europe has already lost this war against Islamofication and in too many cases just doesn’t know it. Even sadder are those that know this but because of PC crap refuse to do anything about it like France.
The only good terrorist is a dead one. And as far as I am concerned, until proven otherwise, Islam breeds too much evil to be considered the religion of peace. Spear me the pap on this BTW. Words mean shit to me: I want actions.
Flat up wrong. The Invasion of Kuwait had numerous reasons behind it. And you can learn all of them in his metting with Glaspie.
....
All nice and well except you ignore the most important reason any Middle Easter despot covets his neighbor’s lands. They all want to be the next Saladin: the one hero that unites (by force if necessary) the various nations into a great Caliphate that will then conquer the world. Yes I know Saddam pain Islam lip service and really did not believe in it. But those that think this way miss the point. It’s not about religion, it’s about power, and religion is used as the excuse to gain said power. Saddam wanted to be the guy running the world. It’s as simple as that. Bin Ladin has the same dream. Islam, like it was for Muhammad, is a means to an end: world rulership.
Stop trying to make it more complicated than it is, and understand where we are: the dark ages of Islam. Christianity had this back in the Middle Ages and luckily overcame it. Acknowledge that’s where we are at, and maybe then we can win this fight.
AlexinCT: Have you ever heard of “State-terrorism”, or about de facto terrorist actions with only the difference that they are perpetrated by a government?
There are lots of historical examples: Spain’s dirty war against the Basques, Britain’s “secret” war in Northern Ireland, CIA aiding coups around the world, South Africa during apartheid, KGB during the Cold War, Sudan/darfur, Serbia/Kosovo, the situation of “Romani” in Eastern Europe. The list is almost as long as the list of governments.
Please do read some background on Chechnya. The situation didn’t get to where it is now over night. You’re blind-eyed will to see the world in b/w, doesn’t make the world b/w. The Russians fucked up in the 1990s. This is backfire. Terrorist actions like this are inexcusable, but they were predictable.
And nuking Chechnya wouldn’t help a lot. You might want to keep in mind that there is over a million Chechnyans. They don’t bare a collective guilt for this intolerable act. Those responsible must be brought to justice, but nuking Groznyi is really not the way to do it.
Dear Alex, please do take your head from your ass. Words might actually solve more than your fucked up “action”.
“Are you saying then that for example because Lincoln refused to let the Union fraction the South should have done this kind of shit?”
Well, really, if you take a look at Kansas during the Civil War, both sides did this sort of ‘shit’.
But I never said or implied that these Chechnyan extremists’ actions were justified by their cause. I do feel sympathy for the Chechnyan quest for independence, but to target civilians - and especially children - is never a tolerable action (regardless of whether it is Chechnyans killing Russian children, or Russians killing Chechnyan children). And fuck you for implying that I said it was, when I quite clearly said it wasn’t.
These extremists have ruined their cause - Russia won’t give Chechnya its freedom because to do so would be seen to giving in to terrorists, especially in light of recent events. And Chechnyans seem more than willing to fight on to the bitter end. Conclusion? Lots of dead people.
and factor in, what effect letting one province go, might have on other “rich” ones.
Russia let many provinces go. The results are mixed. The Baltic states are doing well. Bella Rousse is a disaster. Right now granting any kind of independence in the causcus region with the raging wahabism going on there would be a disaster as well. Don’t be so naive to think that the Chechins turned to that cult only because they don’t have their independence. Your thinking must be more nuanced than that.
There are lots of historical examples: Spain’s dirty war against the Basques, Britain’s “secret” war in Northern Ireland, CIA aiding coups around the world, South Africa during apartheid, KGB during the Cold War, Sudan/darfur, Serbia/Kosovo, the situation of “Romani” in Eastern Europe. The list is almost as long as the list of governments.
This is a horrible paragraph. With regard to Spain and Britain, believe it or not, there are people in the Basque region and Northern Ireland respectively who want nothing to do with this “independence” movement. They are happy to be Spaniards and Brits. Why do you automatically insist that states cannot quell an uprising especially an uprising that uses such brutal tactics as those two groups use?
CIA and the KGB engineering coups during the cold war. Well, war is hell. Would you have preferred that war turned hot?
Gypsies bring the bulk of their probelms on themselves. A little self discipline and repsonsibility go a long way. Oh yeah. They shouldn’t fuck their own children. It’s really bad for the genes.
The rest is about oppression that most of us won’t argue with. However the whole thing boils down to you not having a point.
character traits make wonderfull explanations!
They do when you’re dealing with megalomaniacs.
wouldn t a megalomaic person have chosen a different target than tiny kuwait?
How would I know? Ask a megalomaniac.
Saddam invaded Kuwait for multiple reasons.
All of which had to do with the expansionist tendencies brought on by his megalomania.
if you take a look at Kansas during the Civil War, both sides did this sort of ‘shit’.
Yes, the Kansas/Missouri theater was a border war that had few actual battles and fewer heroes… mainly neighbors sniping at each other. A horrible and complicated period of history that included Quantrill’s Raid on Lawrence, KS. Good flick about it from just a few years ago: Ride with the Devil.
Happy holiday, all.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what your cause is you deserve nothing but scorn and death. Monsters use this tacitc.
I don’t know your context - do you mean at any time in the past few centuries or do you mean today, here and now in the 21st century.
Cause the allied forces during WW2 did exactly that.
Speaking of the the Netherlands
The link takes you to the front page Poosh.
Oh, you have to register I think.
I could post the article here, but Lee would send Ninjas out to punnish me.
Perhaps a little summary to whet our appetite?
Mrs Hirsi Ali, who has risen from Somali asylum seeker to Dutch MP in 12 years, produced the film broadcast on Dutch television on Sunday night to highlight the continued oppression of Muslim women in Europe...
...But Mrs Hirsi Ali has become immensely popular among the ordinary Dutch, people who have been shocked by the sudden emergence of large Muslim enclaves in their cities - often with ties to militant anti-western groups. A parliamentary report this year found that more than 70 per cent of Dutch-born Muslims were bringing in spouses from their home countries, perpetuating a separatist sub-culture.
Her full name is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Mishu
This is a horrible paragraph.
Well, it wasn’t one of my best, gotta admit… :) But you took it out of context. I was replying to Alex’s idiotic raving in which he seemed to think that everything by Russians was ok. What I was trying to say that many governments have used illegal tactics. Illegal even by their own standards. The Russian military uses tactics and procedures in Chechnya that are illegal even under Russian legislation. Many of these acts can be considered to be “terrorism”. So, in a sense, both sides of the conflict use terrorism as a means of war. And it makes both sides responsible for their actions. The Russian side even more, because they should be obeying the law, the are the law, for Christ’s sake! None should be above the law.
This thread is once again sliding to Iraq…
My general opinion on terrorism-related matters is that far too often people forget what terrorism really is. It is not an organisation or an adversary you can kill by simply killing everybody in some hellhole.
It is an instrument of war.
And war is always a continuation of politics by force, as Clausewitz put it in the 19th century.
There is always a political objective. It might be hidden under a cloak of Islam, Christianity, idiocy or whatever, but there is alwys an objective that it tries to achieve.
Far too often Islamism is understood to be that objective. OBL and Al Qaida use terrorism to get a reaction from the West - a reaction that they calculated correctly. Their objective was to start a holy war with your army, and you went in. The 9/11 was onlyl a means to achieve that objective.
Now they are trying to use Iraq and Afghanistan as a rallying cry to gather more support. Hopefully they will fail, but as is seen in Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq going in by force has only strenghtened their support.
As I mentioned earlier the Arab world is waking to see the afwul truth: there are bad apples in its ranks. Question is, how do we win a moral war? With guns? I doubt it.
I’m going to pretend that you never typed that -for my own peace of mind.
Russia let many provinces go. The results are mixed.
russia let the big ones go, and those who were sure to cause trouble.
rather few provinces left russia recently, did they?
Don’t be so naive to think that the Chechins turned to that cult only because they don’t have their independence. Your thinking must be more nuanced than that.
to me, it looks like as if first, there was the struggle for independence. only second was the attempt of international fundamentalist muslims to highjack it.
if you ve got different informations, bring them on!
Why do you automatically insist that states cannot quell an uprising especially an uprising that uses such brutal tactics as those two groups use?
why do you automatically insist, that ppl cannot resist against stateterrorism, especially one that uses such brutal tactics as both those governments did?
again, simple question: no kid ever got killed by government forces? in basque, northern ireland, tchechnia? non held hostage to force his parents to do something?
CIA and the KGB engineering coups during the cold war. Well, war is hell. Would you have preferred that war turned hot?
change iof perspective. imagine you re an al qaida freedom fighter. your argument goes:
sure our groups are killing innocents in new york, madrid and beslan during this cold war. well, war is hell. would you prefer it to turn hot?
Gypsies bring the bulk of their probelms on themselves. A little self discipline and repsonsibility go a long way. Oh yeah. They shouldn’t fuck their own children. It’s really bad for the genes.
you sir, are an asshole.
However the whole thing boils down to you not having a point.
actually, he has one, it s you who missed to make an argument.
finally:
noticed how little news came up about the arab terrorists?
wouldn t it take the last point from this article, if it turned out that they didn t realy exist?
let s wait and see!
Their objective was to start a holy war with your army, and you went in.
You’re a real fucking idiot if you think this was their objective, considering that their stated onjective is the destruction of the United States, its conversion to Islam, and the resources of the United States to be used to make war on the rest of the non-Islamic world.
You’re a real fucking idiot if you think this was their objective, considering that their stated onjective is the destruction of the United States, its conversion to Islam, and the resources of the United States to be used to make war on the rest of the non-Islamic world.
where i come from, wars are fought one battle at a time....
Call me names all you want. It is an ugly aspect of Gypsie culture.
why do you automatically insist, that ppl cannot resist against stateterrorism, especially one that uses such brutal tactics as both those governments did?
Never suggested as such. Yet, Ukraine, the Baltics , Kazakstan, etc. manage to break away without using such tactics. Oh yeah Uzbekistan, 297 billion barrels of oil. Kinda blows the “it’s all about the oil” theory.
noticed how little news came up about the arab terrorists?
They were Arab and now they are dead. Right now that’s all there is. Right now, Russians are focused on burying their dead and grieving. I’m sure this fact will develop.
You’re a real fucking idiot if you think this was their objective, considering that their stated onjective is the destruction of the United States, its conversion to Islam, and the resources of the United States to be used to make war on the rest of the non-Islamic world.
Yes their stated objective. Ahh yes, The man to take by his words: OBL.
OBL is a loser, he didn’t represent the mainstream arabic thinking in 2001, hopefully he won’t in 2011. He’s only hope is that your actions (whether real or just the image of your actions - it doesn’t matter to him that you may have the best of intentions.) bring the main stream behind him.
As polls have shown he is succeeding in that. Your popularity has diminished since 2001, especially in the muslim countries.
Mishu: the gypsies are being persecuted in most East European countries, Slovakia and Romania especially. There really is no excuse.
And it is not new - this is actually only a continuation of the kind of persecution that the gypsies had to endure during the WWII. Nazis put gypsies (and homos) in camps too.
I am amazed to see that you think that systematic oppression of the romani is allright when anti-anti-semitism seems to be all the rage on this blog. And you claim that it is actually their own fault because of in-breeding??? You sir just showed to us all that you are a racist of the worst kind.
(And no, I don’t think that anti-jew is ok.)
Hmm. Ayatollah Khomeni said the same things. And there’s the Friday sermon roundup. Yes, this death to the infidels thing is just an anamoly.
All of which had to do with the expansionist tendencies brought on by his megalomania.
wrong, he wanted to rebuild his country after a war and he didn’t have enough resources available to him to do so due to Kuwait undercutting the price of oil.
If I was placed into that Situation and I asked the US ambasador his opinion on my takeover of this country and he said, ‘James Baker wants me to make it clear that we have NO OPINION on this’, I would have gone in too. Energy resources and money are important to reconstruction efforts.
They all want to be the next Saladin: the one hero that unites (by force if necessary) the various nations into a great Caliphate that will then conquer the world.
This is true, he did see himself as the next Saladin. But that’s not the whole end all of the story. He needed money for reconstruction efforts. The US has had a stranglehold on foreign investment capital for a fairly long time now, so getting that would be fairly difficult. So he sought to expand his oil driven economy by any means necessary. You can keep screaming he was a megalomaniac, but that doesn’t somehow make the real and justified reasons he actually went in disappear or any less relevant.
The man to take by his words: OBL
Why not? Where does it say he’s a liar. Where does it say that if you are mad or evil you also have to be a liar?
wrong, he wanted to rebuild his country after a war and he didn’t have enough resources available to him to do so due to Kuwait undercutting the price of oil.
Fine, he could have gone in and just seized the disputed oil fields and leave it at that. It would have created some tense stand off, blah. But, his troops had to take over the damn country along with that rape, pillage and pluner. See, nuance.
but many of us don’t believe that the war in Iraq is related to the war on terrorism, especially since our President doesn’t seem to give a damn about North Korea or Iran
If anything, Iran is looking more and more on the hitlist than it is now, that is if Israel doesn’t fix their nuclear aspirations on their own. :D
About North Korea, what exactly is your solution? Invade? North Korea’s different than Iraq, it’s not going to be simple if we go in there. I thought libs loved nuanced solutions, but oh well…
This horrible and sickening act of terrorism was partly caused the Russian policy in Chechnya.
Don’t you say the same thing about Israelis getting blown to pieces, too?
In the 19th century (And most of the 20th too) the indenpendence struggle by the Chechnyan has more to do with the concept of nationalism than islamism.
This has nothing to do with, say, Al-Qaeda moving in to radicalize them?
anyone looking forward to elections in “january”?
anyone expecting them to happen? happen fairly and without chaos?
Well, pray they will, it’ll prove you right, after all!
cross syria and strike at israel?
Or he could go the less dangerous route by attacking the small, feeble country to their southeast AND launch scuds at Israel. Which is, well, what he did.
On top of this, PICK UP A FUCKING MAP. Put your finger on Iraq and then look at all the different countries around it. THERE WE GO.
That’s the heart of the argument. Thank you Poosh for giving these morons a lesson that as adults, they should’ve been able to figure out on their own. Still, you can lead a horse (erm, donkey maybe?) to the water, but you can’t make it drink.
Fine, he could have gone in and just seized the disputed oil fields and leave it at that. It would have created some tense stand off, blah. But, his troops had to take over the damn country along with that rape, pillage and pluner. See, nuance.
And Hitler could have stopped at the Sudetenland.
Also, just siezing the oil fields he thought were slant drilling would not stop Kuwait from undercutting the price of oil.
That and you get more money if you take over everything as oppossed to just some of it.
Godwin has arrived.
“CIA aiding coups around the world”
So help me God, if you’re talking about sending people to destabilize communist regimes, just stop. I don’t believe in letting them run willy nilly. People who do are fucking duped by them, or they’re commies themselves.
“al qaida freedom fighter. “
The only asshole I see here is you for having the huevos to call them that.
And Hitler could have stopped at the Sudetenland.
And he was also rather megalomaniacal. I think you might’ve just hurt your case.
wrong, I just admitted that yes, Saddam had a megamaniacal complex. But that still does not excuse the OTHER REASONS he went in. It explains why he kept going instead of stopping, not why he took such an action in the first place.
Call me names all you want. It is an ugly aspect of Gypsie culture.
you base your oppinion on this?
On the subject, she writes: another aspect of family violence is incest, which is believed to happen more frequently among Gypsies than among other groups.
enough to legitimize genocide amongst them?
a reason to kill the wifes and daughters as well?
(i ll leave it here. very much of topic)
Oh yeah Uzbekistan, 297 billion barrels of oil. Kinda blows the “it’s all about the oil” theory.
please, read my posts. is it too much to ask for?
uzbekistan not only has more oil, it s much bigger as well. and as no one around here has declared putin a megalomanic, ...
nothing blown!
They were Arab and now they are dead. Right now that’s all there is. Right now, Russians are focused on burying their dead and grieving. I’m sure this fact will develop.
real question:
any news about the arabs yet?
please, post a link if you ve got any news.
(media sucks)
Fine, he could have gone in and just seized the disputed oil fields and leave it at that. It would have created some tense stand off, blah. But, his troops had to take over the damn country along with that rape, pillage and pluner. See, nuance.
so could have bush in iraq.
you sir, know shit about war, do you? a lot of the iraq/kuweit war was about access to the sea. it might be eassier to control the whole tiny country, than to have “islands” and “corridors” running all over it.
oh, and you don t give away your real interests, btw…
Don’t you say the same thing about Israelis getting blown to pieces, too?
yep.
not so real questions:
do more israelis or palestians get killed in the conflict???
Or he could go the less dangerous route by attacking the small, feeble country to their southeast AND launch scuds at Israel. Which is, well, what he did.
sounds not very megalomanic to me. more like a despearte tactic to bring help in.
On top of this, PICK UP A FUCKING MAP. Put your finger on Iraq and then look at all the different countries around it. THERE WE GO.
fortunetly, as things lok atthe moment, you re going nowhere soon.
The only asshole I see here is you for having the huevos to call them that.
he thinks it s ok to eradicate the gypsies.
i think some part of arab resistance has a legitimate source.
same level of assholiness?
Seed of Moore!
Let me guess, the families of the dead in Russia DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH! They DID NOT VOTE FOR PUTIN! These people are the Revolutionaries and the Minutemen, and they will win!
What is Moore’s take on this? Does he have a camera crew taping dead bodies in back of trucks? What music was playing?
When will he interview the l337 minutemen?
enough to legitimize genocide amongst them?
a reason to kill the wifes and daughters as well?
(i ll leave it here. very much of topic)
Huh? I was talking about their current situation now. If you are talking about Hitler’s attempts to erradicate them, no, I’m not for it. See Godwin and file it under duh.
you sir, know shit about war, do you? a lot of the iraq/kuweit war was about access to the sea. it might be eassier to control the whole tiny country, than to have “islands” and “corridors” running all over it.
Again, look at the map. Iraq has access to the sea, always did. They have a nice deep water port called Um Qasr. I’ll reiterate points listed above.
1. He considered Kuwait to be the ‘lost 13th province’. This has to do with things that occured before the British partioned the mid east.
2. The Kuwaiti’s were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Is this true? I don’t know, but all that matters is if Saddam thought it was true.
3. He needed extra money resources after the Iran-Iraq war left his country decimated. Gaining oil is a good way to do that.
4. The Kuwaiti’s were dumping a ton of oil onto the market which caused the price to drop substantially. Needless to say this made it more difficult for Saddam to export oil.
He could have taken care of points 2, 3 and 4 by stopping at the oil fields in question. Point 1 is a very weak argument because there was no such thing as Iraq prior to 1921. Plus, rape, pillage and plunder is not a good plan to win the peace.
Now, what else do you want to excuse Saddam for? Halabja?
Let me guess, the families of the dead in Russia DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH! They DID NOT VOTE FOR PUTIN! These people are the Revolutionaries and the Minutemen, and they will win!
they were the Revolutionaries and the Minutemen.
they have won this battle.
but why not simply join the debate with an argument?
Huh? I was talking about their current situation now. If you are talking about Hitler’s attempts to erradicate them, no, I’m not for it. See Godwin and file it under duh.
i didn t want to talk about this any longer. you forced me to do so.
1. godwin has been called before under this topic. invoking it again makes littler sense.
2. so your guessing what i say, then call “fool play”?
3. looking at history, you might learn that the gypsies have suffered under other regimes in a multitude of countries.
zero points.
Again, look at the map. Iraq has access to the sea, always did. They have a nice deep water port called Um Qasr. I’ll reiterate points listed above.
everyone knows.
we are repeating the “russia has oil” debate here again.
there is access to sea, and good access to sea.
you might want to study russias history a bit, and understand.
meanwhile simply belief me on the iraq issue. i know.
Now, what else do you want to excuse Saddam for? Halabja?
we are neither excusing, nor defending saddam.
this discussion (pretty far from the subject at hand) is about wether saddam attacked kuweit because of a character trait or wether there are perfectly reasonable (not good or honest!) reasons for the war.
Point 1 is a very weak argument because there was no such thing as Iraq prior to 1921.
other ppl attack countries because of nonexisting WMDs.
if i remember correctly, iraqs claim is not that far fetched.
Plus, rape, pillage and plunder is not a good plan to win the peace.
you migth want to tell it to your fellows over ther right now, will you?
back to topic:
anyone got any news on the arabs among the hostage takers?
don t you see, that putin only needs the imunity from ppl pointing to his partial guilt for a couple of days?
until stuff like “francis” take over attention?
these are the same guys who proclaimed that there were only 300 hostages. doesn t sum up, does it?
why is that one source “10/9 arabs” cited over and over again? will it form another “saddam - 9/11” link???
lot s of typos, looks like i m too tired…
anyway, i forgot to thank for the link to that map.
one look at it will show you, what s wrong with the iraqi “port”.
more and more news sources are having doubts about the arabs.
it will be too late, though i fear.
we are repeating the “russia has oil” debate here again.
You are? You’re all over the place. Russia, Iraq, Nazi Germany…
meanwhile simply belief me on the iraq issue. i know.
You haven’t demostrated anything supporting such a claim.
[/quote]other ppl attack countries because of nonexisting WMDs.
Nice try. Iraq, with regard to disarmament, had to follow the standards of South Africa and the Ukraine. They didn’t. Saddam loses. In the longest telegraph punch in history, Saddam got to destroy, hide and/or move chemical weapons to Syria. Chemical weapons have been found in Iraq enough to kill 20,000. Big media is still waiting for the Wyle E. Coyote stash of ACME WMD. Of course, that won’t happen.you migth want to tell it to your fellows over ther right now, will you?[quote]
Exactly right now? Doubtful. You better watch what you say because your boys are over there too ya limey.
This article here says the Germans confirm Arab involvement.
You are? You’re all over the place. Russia, Iraq, Nazi Germany…
russia is the subject of this topic. i was trying to avoid iraq as much as possible. show me where i mentioned germany.
You haven’t demostrated anything supporting such a claim.
of course i didn t. it s of topic. either you believe me, or find out taht i m telling the truth for yourself. or stay ignorant.
access to sea was a major issue in the iraqi kuweiti relationship. your map shows why.
... move chemical weapons to Syria.
this is a conspiracy theory.
Exactly right now? Doubtful. You better watch what you say because your boys are over there too ya limey.
no.
finally:
your links proof nothing.
noone is denying that al-qaida fighters went to chechnia in the past. noone is denying connections and support.
question is:
were there any arabs among the hostage takers?
Seed of Doubt: Your posts are painful to read. Try exploring the wide range of punctuation and grammatical options provided by your keyboard. Things like apostrophes [’], and the SHIFT key are available for your use right now. Thank you. [/grammar nazi].
Seed of doubt: Economically, it would be a good thing for the US, and a bad thing for the EU, to have oil prices marked in Euros instead of dollars. I know it might surprise you that control of something that volatile might be bad, when people like you think that the US only wants to rule the world, but most policy analysts and economists I know have been praying for OPEC nations to mark prices in Euros since before 9/11.
As to Russia, I don’t think it tells us much about anything, as I don’t think it is an even marginally similar situation to 9/11. However, I agree with Russia on one point: left alone, Chechen rebels and muslim terrorists would strike outside their nation at every wrong, perceived or not, and they would blame every internal problem on an external source.
This is the problem, you see. Even if America were to withdraw support of Israel, and withdraw from the rest of the world, there are a few nations in the middle east that would continue to blame the West (and, obviously, Israel). Beyond launching the middle east into war, I still believe that there would be anti-western attacks (and the reason that the Netherlands are not targetted is simple; they are not important).
Final point, I find it funny that we have leftists here who simultaneously think that this attack was solely done because of Russia’s actions in Chechnya, but think that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I’m sorry, ignoring any questions of reshaping the middle east (again in a way that should be applauded by liberals; education and democracy remove extremism, right?), one of the main reasons to go to war with Iraq was specifically about removing one of the main causes of the 9/11 attacks. To enforce the Iraq ceasefire, American troops had to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, and, whether it was true or not, muslim terror recruiters said that American women were walking freely in Mecca and Medina (and this was, in fact, one of the three main reasons that OBL gave for attacking the US). By letting those soldiers do their jobs, we removed Saddam, showed strength, -and- removed a prime piece of recruiting propaganda (whatever you might think, nothing that the US has done in Iraq is as good as steping foot in Mecca). You should be all over this people.
Please do read some background on Chechnya. The situation didn’t get to where it is now over night. You’re blind-eyed will to see the world in b/w, doesn’t make the world b/w. The Russians fucked up in the 1990s. This is backfire. Terrorist actions like this are inexcusable, but they were predictable.
Thinksmall, go read my post again. In it I maid clear that I once held the same belief as you did about the Chechnya-Russia conflict being quite complicated. However for me that ended the first time the Chechnyans chose to go after civilian targets. The moment any group makes a determined effort to go after civilians, especially children, the issue immediately becomes black and white to me. I am simple like that. Those that chose to target innocents are nothing but evil barbarians, and their cause, however noble, ceases to be anything but murder to me.
And nuking Chechnya wouldn’t help a lot. You might want to keep in mind that there is over a million Chechnyans. They don’t bare a collective guilt for this intolerable act. Those responsible must be brought to justice, but nuking Groznyi is really not the way to do it.
Yet they also don’t seem to find it wrong, condemn it, and demand those that did this kind of evil shit stop doing it in their name. In fact many have come out and called these bastards killing civilians in their names their heroes. Maybe you are right and nukes are not the answer (it would ruin the oil I guess), but people like this IMO abdicated their right to be part of any kind of civilized society.
Dear Alex, please do take your head from your ass. Words might actually solve more than your fucked up “action”.
I have never seen words do anything but make idiots like you feel important. Your personal attacks seem to be the standard tacics of any and all idiots that are both morally ambiguous and lacking in substance. Maybe you should explore where your head is instead of worrying about mine.
either you believe me, or find out taht i m telling the truth for yourself. or stay ignorant.
Since you don’t back up your shit and tell me to do your work, I find it hard to belief [sic] you and easier to find you ignorant.
The rest of the rebels who have been identified were apparently from the rank and file. The prisoner does not know them. A third of them are Arabs. One of the Arabs killed had a booklet in his possession that was at first taken to be identification documents, but it later turned out to be a prayer book. The Arab dead are thus unlikely to be identified any time soon.
According to Bill Maher, Jason Alexander and Arianna Huffington, 9/11 was George W. Bush’s fault.
Andrew Who? also seemed to be enjoying the festivities as well.
And just who was the conservative pundit you ask? Why every Republicans good pal Pat Buchanan.
The audience, which was apparently scooped up from a MoveOn Santa Monica rally, were also very enthusiastic with their responses.
Yes, it’s safe to say that a good time was had by all.
That show still on?
Seed of doubt: Economically, it would be a good thing for the US, and a bad thing for the EU, to have oil prices marked in Euros instead of dollars.
it would only be a start. the US would be in trouble if countries would start shifting their reserves in big piles.
i see how the US is profiting from weak dollar at the moment. but there is a lower limit to this!
Beyond launching the middle east into war, I still believe that there would be anti-western attacks
so do i. but every person not becoming recruited is good news.
you are not killing the right ppl at the moment. one recent recruitee in a dangerous position can spell doom!
Final point, I find it funny that we have leftists here who simultaneously think that this attack was solely done because of Russia’s actions in Chechnya, but think that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
i don t see any contradiction here.
neither do i see a connection between the departure from saudi arabia and the war in iraq.
(didn t the former happen much earlier? do you argue that the US has the right of a loyakl base in the middle east?)
1/3 were Arab
thanks for the link. hasn t hit mainstream media so far though.
let s see.
(i ve still got the feeling that a picture of the “black guy” should be circulating already. or some hostages remember ppl speaking arabic.)
“it would only be a start. the US would be in trouble if countries would start shifting their reserves in big piles.”
Sure, but what does that have to do with buying oil in Euros from Iraq?
“i see how the US is profiting from weak dollar at the moment. but there is a lower limit to this!”
No, there really isn’t. Thank you for trying though. A crash, like any sudden move that is too large, would be bad, but I can’t see how a steady drop hurts us.
“so do i. but every person not becoming recruited is good news.”
But the recruiters use the simple fact that we are talking about failed states and cultures that accept suicide attacks as a means for political motion. As long as they have governments that aren’t accountable to the people, as long as every ill is said to be external no matter the reality, and as long as terrorism is socially acceptable, no matter what anyone outside of such a state does, there will be terrorism. You are saying that we should minimize propaganda tools; I agree, but we should also aim for the reinvention of failed states, crafting them into economically viable, politically active ones. In the short term, this may increase terrorism, in the long term, it is one of the only realistic solutions. In terms of Russia specifically, rebuilding Chechnya is the only logical possibility, but you are being dishonest not to even consider that a fly-paper strategy in Chechnya might actually decrease terror attacks more than they are increased by Russia’s actions, or to pretend that this is solely a resort of Russia’s actions.
“you are not killing the right ppl at the moment. one recent recruitee in a dangerous position can spell doom!”
I’m not even sure what this means. Nor do I have any clue how you can logically splice this in with the previous admission that the actions of the victims are not solely responsible, in any of these situations, for the terror attacks.
“i don t see any contradiction here.”
1. You think that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
2. I earlier thought that you (and others still do) think that Russia’s actions were solely responsible for this terror attack.
That’s a contradiction.
“neither do i see a connection between the departure from saudi arabia and the war in iraq.”
Uhh, are you stoned or just stupid? The US soldiers in Saudi Arabia were ONLY there to enforce the ceasefire and protect the Kurds living under the No-Fly zones.
“(didn t the former happen much earlier?"”
Yes, but once Saddam was removed, those soldiers didn’t have a job to do anymore, and they left. In other words, cause, and then effect. Time, events...one thing leads to another… Understand?
“do you argue that the US has the right of a loyal base in the middle east?)”
What? Uhh, no. Are you stoned man? I’ve seen more coherent cybersex than this.
Sure, but what does that have to do with buying oil in Euros from Iraq?
euro getting used for more important stuff --> countries change reserves.
not compulsary, but likly.
No, there really isn’t. Thank you for trying though. A crash, like any sudden move that is too large, would be bad, but I can’t see how a steady drop hurts us.
1. crashes tend not to happen during upward movements, do they? instead, each “steady” decline includes the danger of a crash.
2. you re telling me, however low the dollar falls in comparison with other currencies, it will not matter? no limit at all?
but you are being dishonest not to even consider that a fly-paper strategy in Chechnya might actually decrease terror attacks more than they are increased by Russia’s actions, or to pretend that this is solely a resort of Russia’s actions.
i fear what we ve seen the temporary “positive” effect of a tough strategy in tchechnya already. it was the silence before this storm.
apart from that, i tend to agree with most of that long paragraph.
I’m not even sure what this means.
the real danger is not a poor guy recruited to al qaida somewhere in the desert of iraq or saudi arabia.
it s a guy, who is already in a thrustworthy position, somewhere inside our system, who decides to form an al qaida cell of it s own.
reach out with imagination, what s the worst case?
the arab immigrant engineer working at a nuclear powerplant?
a muslim cleaning women in a big chemical plant?
the recent convertee, tanking planes at a major airport?
those ppl place a double danger:
1. they threaten more carnage than anythibng we ve seen so far.
2. protecting against them (before or after an attack), means major, major trouble.
all those guys are watching the news every night…
That’s a contradiction.
i still don t see it.
“solely” is a pretty stong word, that i never used!
Uhh, are you stoned or just stupid? The US soldiers in Saudi Arabia were ONLY there to enforce the ceasefire and protect the Kurds living under the No-Fly zones.
neither nor.
why not protect them from friendly kuweit or nato partner turkey?
“(didn t the former happen much earlier?"”
this was a honest question. i realy wasn t sure about the timeline of events. thanks for clearing that up.
I’ve seen more coherent cybersex than this.
your arguments runs down to: now that we ve conquered iraq, we don t need a base in SA any longer. was another honest question.
tanking = refueling
“euro getting used for more important stuff --> countries change reserves.
not compulsary, but likly.”
You say likely, I don’t see it.
“1. crashes tend not to happen during upward movements, do they? instead, each “steady” decline includes the danger of a crash.
2. you re telling me, however low the dollar falls in comparison with other currencies, it will not matter? no limit at all?”
Yeah, basically. If the entire oil business were done in Euros, and all oil states switched reserves to Euros, it really wouldn’t be a problem.
“i fear what we ve seen the temporary “positive” effect of a tough strategy in tchechnya already. it was the silence before this storm.”
I’ve recently read this article, which actually makes me lean even more strongly toward the idea that Russia’s actions are irrelevant to the terrorists.
“those ppl place a double danger:
1. they threaten more carnage than anythibng we ve seen so far.
2. protecting against them (before or after an attack), means major, major trouble.
all those guys are watching the news every night… “
So, they are mad at what, exactly? The US cruelly removing Saddam Hussein?
“i still don t see it. “
I’m sorry for you.
1. OBL said that US troops in SA were a big reason for 9/11.
2. The Iraq war let the US move troops from SA without having to run away.
3. Therefore, the Iraq war allowed the US to remove a key factor that agitated muslims, without showing weakness.
“why not protect them from friendly kuweit or nato partner turkey?”
Duhh, they wouldn’t let us. Saudi Arabia agreed to let us house hundreds and thousands of soldiers indefinitely, Kuwait and Turkey weren’t willing to do that (indeed, Turkey had to be paid billions just to let US forces take off from there for the war, and US forces only entered Kuwait to protect it; there was no chance they would let us keep US forces there indefinitely).
“your arguments runs down to: now that we ve conquered iraq, we don t need a base in SA any longer. was another honest question”
Yes, actually, that’s what I think.
Next entry: Suing Allah
Previous entry: Hillary
No, they hate us because of our freedoms! Even though the Netherlands is even more liberal… for some reason they don’t attract the ire of Islamofacistradicals… just the nations that occupy (and in Russia’s case) subjugate an Islamic people. Hrm… I wonder why that is…