Ruthless cold blooded chenchyan right wing extremists trained by the CIA

by toneore Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:22 toneore at eircom dot net

I see. So, it's America's fault that children were kidnapped and murdered? These chechen terrorists are murdering kids so they can get visas to disneyland, right?
Again, fellow-traveller or terrorists, you are a sad, very sad, person who cannot even see the killing of kids for what it is.

by toneore Fri Sep 03, 2004 18:38 toneore at eircom dot net

from: debka.com:


Three terrorists blockaded with child hostages in basement of Breslan school, North Osettia, seven hours after Russian soldiers stormed building. Fighting and explosions continue.

More than 150 found dead after soldiers broke into gym where most hostages held. At least 409 hostages injured, of whom 219 children - 5 in grave condition. More than 400 hostages rescued or escaped. Latest estimate of total number of hostages is 1,200. Itar-Tass: 70% were children.

Twenty hostage-takers killed, 10 of them Arabs – al Qaeda terrorists, some Saudis. About 13 escaped. At least one group attacked by soldiers in town.

Russian security chief stated no military storming of besieged school was planned, only continued negotiations. Troops opened fire to save hostages’ lives when terrorists ignited explosives in the gym and fired on fleeing hostages.

Children in bad state were carried out, first by soldiers, then stretcher bearers amid shooting amid explosions. Chaotic scene as parents rushed school to find missing children and armed townsmen entered school and hunted escaping hostage-takers.

In first stage of assault, soldiers carried children - some naked, injured or covered in blood - out of building on third day without food, water, hygienic conditions and short of air. Hostage takers demanded total independence for Chechnya.

by Ois Fri Sep 03, 2004 18:43

The killing of kids being what now?

Although the above post does seem rather fantastical and conspiritorial and just a little bit crazy, I don't see how it doesn't 'see the killing of kids for what it is'.

Unless you are saying the killing of kids is the killing of kids. And that's wrong and the stepping razor doesn't see that. Is that what you are saying? If so it's a bit of a silly thing to say. Obviously the killing of kids is the killing of kids, that a tautology, and obivously it is wrong but stepping razor's disgust and the terrorists acts is clear to see in his post.

Unless you are saying the killing of kids is the killing of kids, it is wrong and nothing more can be said of it. Unless you are saying that the killing of kids in Russia is an apolitical act. If that is what you are saying - you are wrong.

by Declan Fri Sep 03, 2004 19:29

Do we know if they are rightwing?

by Declan Fri Sep 03, 2004 19:32

do we know if they are muslim?

by toneore Fri Sep 03, 2004 20:48 toneore at eircom dot net

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3624494.stm

by Anorak Fri Sep 03, 2004 20:58 hypocrite_watch at windymedia dot org

Q: "were they rightwing?", "were they muslim?"
A: No, they were the local branch of the Quakers.

Cop On.

by Declan Fri Sep 03, 2004 21:10

I'm not privy to your sources. Please elaborate.

by Liz Fri Sep 03, 2004 23:01 Belfast

Today's Irish Times, Guardian and London INdependent all say that the hostage takers are a combination of people from Chechya, North Osssettia where the school is and Ingushetia. All these regions have suffered badly at the hands of the Russian Empire, from the days of the Czar through Stalin and since. Putin has probably been tougher than all except Stalin.

Stalin actually deported the ENTIRE population of Chechnya in an early example of ethnic cleansing. They were only allowed back to Chechnya after Stalin's death. Putin has done his best to emulate Stalin and, in the process, has killed most of the young men in the country. That is why we have seen the emergence of women suicide bombers - or Black Widows as the media calls them. There is so much desperation in Chechnya. It can only be compared to Palestine.

None of this is to defend taking little children hostage or harming them in any way. Just to explain the desperation of these people that leads them to do such horrendous things.

by Nordie Fri Sep 03, 2004 23:26

70% of married women in Chechyna have been left widowed by this conflict. Unimaginable.

by jams - anti imperialist Fri Sep 03, 2004 23:46

Funny how the attack on children when done wholesale attracts (and rightly so) so much condemnation, however, the piecemeal slaughter of over 500 palestinian children over the last 3 years by the Israeli terror gangs aka the so called israeli "defence" force is blithley ignored.

Imperialism from the czars days thru stalin and now to putin is the cause of this ultimately. Its easy to call the Chechens terrorists but what about the mass terror inflicted on them by putin for the last 8 years?
Funny how the terrorist is always the one with the small bomb.....

by sceptic Sat Sep 04, 2004 06:12

"70% of married women in Chechyna have been left widowed by this conflict. Unimaginable"

No actually unbelieveable.

Please be realistic

by toneore Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:40 toneore at eircom dot net

"Liz" - your potted history lesson is nothing but an apologia for terrorism, but then that's something the rest of us are well used to coming out of Belfast. It explains nothing. Why don't you look at
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0904/ and put yourself in the shoes of the mother of that child? But what about the desperation in Palestine? That is not desperation its more of the terrorism - this time the murder of people in Israel by terrorists. Well done, combined with the behaviour of the RNC protestors, you've just re-elected Bush.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:23

toneore: did Liz organise the RNC protests? Is everyone who's not a reactionary fuckwit like you in cahoots or something?

Your double standards are ridiculous. "put yourself in the shoes of the mother of that child" Fair enough- put YOURself in the shoes of a Chechen widow. Or the family of Palestinian shaheed.

Your arguments are simplistic and hysterical. Liz clearly stated that she's not defending their actions, just explaining their desperation. There's a difference. I can simultaneously understand that anti-semitism and the Holocaust caused desperation which led people to accept Zionism, and oppose the actions of Zionists.

by Nordie Sat Sep 04, 2004 13:31

'Why Lie
by sceptic Saturday, Sep 4 2004, 5:12am


"70% of married women in Chechyna have been left widowed by this conflict. Unimaginable"

No actually unbelieveable.

Please be realistic'


I know, I got that on the BBC and they're run by Chechyan rebels. Sorry 'bout that.

Over a quarter of the Chechan population has died because of that war, so I don't think it's very unrealistic.

by John Sat Sep 04, 2004 14:16

This masascre has been met with almost universal disgust and as sure as night follows days the 'what aboutism' starts - absolutely sickening

by Nordie Sat Sep 04, 2004 14:26

If you truly cared about the children who died and cared enough not to want to see things like it happen again and again then you'd care enough to engage in the 'what-about-ism' and see where the roots of this evil lie and you'd care about the children murdered in Chechyna too. But you don't. Absolutley disgusting.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 15:16

The point is that it's possible to understand someones motivation while opposing their actions. Viewing the world in black and white, good and bad, right and wrong is, quite simply, really really stupid. Not my fault you're a fuckwit

Surely John, Noel etc. have heard of cause and effect?

"Gandhi achieved independence for his nation without resorting to killing kids on buses, in schools, in pizza shops.

Were the people of India less desperate, less downtrodden than Palestinians or Chechens?"


Firstly, many Palestinians are, and have been for many years, involved in Non-violent resistance. I am currently in Palestine taking part in such resistance. The Occupation is 56 years old. People here have been trying non-violence since then, to little avail. The first Intifada consisted of stonethrowing. Over 2000 Palestinians died compared to a handful of Israelis. Real violence from the Palestinian side did not begin until 4 years ago. You don't understand why some people would turn to violence in a situation like that? What would you suggest?

Secondly, i don't think NVDA is much of an option in Chechnya, where Russia seems to be able to carry out massacres and not worry about the bad publicity.

I'm sure a group of Chechens sitting down and chanting "peaceful protest" would achieve a lot. [sarcasm]

NVDA in many situations is largely a pr stunt. Many pacifists are delighted when a peaceful action gets attacked because of the bad publicity it gives the oppressor. For people who are not white/western/living under a "western liberal democracy", and therefore whose deaths are not newsworthy, this approach is not viable.

Finally, Gandhi was a religious nationalist who supported the caste system and opposed the liberation of women. The point that HE achieved national liberation is a bit naive. Iplicit in any mass movement is the threat of violence if it's not successful. It's not like he FORCED Britain to free India, they chose to do so. If the British hadn't made that choice, what would have happened? Also, his pacifism didn't work too well after India's liberation, as someone of his own nationality had no problem with killing him.

All in all, not a good example to use.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 15:22

Noel on another thread you criticised the Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike. Hunger-striking is a form of nonviolent resistance employed by ol' hindu nationalist boy himself. At least TRY to make consistent arguments

by Noel Sat Sep 04, 2004 16:07

Donal,

I wasn't criticising Palestinian terrorists for embarking on a hunger strike, regardless of how futile it proved.

I criticise Palestinian terrorists for being terrorists. Killing kids deliberately, that sort of thing.

I'm sure you must agree, terrorists who deliberately murder children must be condemned. By condemned I don't mean some quasi-relativism which lays the blame on the victims.

No, I mean condemn. Go on give it a try.
Try condemning terrorists for deliberately targeting and killing children without your usual auto-responses.

by Nordie Sat Sep 04, 2004 16:21

I do condemn terrorists who attack children. No matter what your cause is, attacking children makes you a terrorist. Now, will you condemn the Zionist and Russian oppression and the occupation which are at the root of the Palestinian and Chechan conflicts? Will you condemn the robbery of Palestinian land and the bombing of Grozny which slaughted 60,000 in a week? No, you won't. So don't complain about the effects if you support the causes. Terrible abuse of a body causes cancer. A simple fact.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:04

What are you basing that on? Do you have any facts to back it up?

I've met men who were imprisoned for talking on megaphones at non-violent demos. And others for hosting international activists in their house. And others for organising non-violent campaigns against the wall.

You imply they should use non-violence, then when they do you believe the Israeli claim that they're a threat to security. Do you think Britain might have viewed Gandhi as a threat to security? Wasn't he imprisoned for taking part in civil disobedience?

Besides the MANY who have been imprisoned for no crime, there are some "terrorists" (i use inverted commas because this is an ambiguous term, and i suspect we have different definitions of terrorism). However wrong you feel their actions were, there are certain inalienable rights which they cannot be denied of. That's the point of human rights, they apply to EVERYONE. So surely you should applaud them for employing non-violence to achieve their basic human rights

As for condemnation, as "terrorism" is such a catch-all term for people like you, i will not condemn it outright.

I AM opposed to suicide bombings, for example.

However:

1. surely you're not suggesting that the 7000 Palestinians in Israeli jails are suicide bombers. Seems to me that you can't imprison a dead person.

2. your take on suicide bombings is flawed. They are a reaction, not an unexplainable act of aggression. Also you claim they're targeted at innocent people. Given that everyone in Israel is obliged to serve in the army, what is your definition of an innocent civilian? I'll remind you that i already said i'm against these attacks, but in such a highly militarised society it would be hard to carry out an attack that did NOT hit amilitary target even if you tried. (and before you say the children are innocent etc., we all know that the killing of these kids is terrible. The fact that you even seem to think we need to debate that is disgusting and an insult to those who died.)

by Nordie Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:06

Oh yes, yes. I forgot. God told them they could take it. God (which is the UN) told them that they could split Palestine in two even when it was against the majority wishes of its people. Then, even when Zionists demands led to war and the Zionists destoyed Palestinian villages and wiped them off the map and built their own on top of the land and then created untold numbers of refugees and then even when the Zionists moved into the West Bank and Gaza after another war which their original robbery was the cause off and took the vast majority of the water for the vast minority of the people that the Zionists send into those places to 'settle' and even when the Zionists knock down olives groves and built colonial settlements on top of them this is not stealing, because the UN god told them it wasn't. And even when the UN god says the colonial settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are an occupation, well its still ok because it just is.

If only the Palestinians would read the Torah more often then they would see that THEY are the occupiers and land stealers and that when the desendents of a people who once lived in a land which their ancestors stole by the use of genocide and slavery want to return to that land 2000 years after leaving it then no matter what these prodigal sons do, even if its destroying villages to build other villages for the master race on, then its not really stealing because its just not. Its not you know. Its just not. The Palestinians were only keeping it warm for the master race. They don't count. Just because they don't.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:16

first of all, who said "Jewish"? The Israelis are stealing Palestinian land.

So how is it a myth? The International Court of Justice seems to think otherwise. Numerous UN resolutions seem to say otherwise. And the Mahatma Gandhi Institute. And anti-Zionist Jews. And Zionists like Peace Now. And anybody who knows any basic facts about the situation.

by Noel Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:18

'The Arabs are as prodigal at selling their land as they are at weeping about it'. King Abdullah of Jordan.

The returning Jews purchased the land from mainly absentee landlords.

Read some history books.
I'm sure they have large print pop-up types you might understand.

by Jubjub Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:30

Yes, and in 1948/49 they used violence and intimidation to drive the arabs from their land.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:40

Absentee landlords selling some land

That explains the 800,000+ Palestinians who in 1948 were refugees from within what would become the borders of Israel.

They went on holidays and sold their land so they could live in "refugee camps" which are really just holiday campsites.

And the further 180,000 who fled the West Bank and Gaza in 1967? They wanted in on this scheme too i'm sure.

The 3,172,641 people the UN considered registered Palestinian refugees in 1995 are actually estate agents

Whinging terrorists. They make me sick

by Noel Sat Sep 04, 2004 17:43

The Arabs left their land for numerous reasons.
Most fled to avoid being caught in a war zone.
Many left because the Arab leadership urged them to. A small minority were expelled.

Had they accepted the 1947 UN resolution there would be no Palestinian refugees and there would be a sovereign Arab state co-existing alongside Israel.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 18:04

They were refugees in 1948, before the war. The resolution made people refugees also, they had to leave their land. Did your big pop-up book of fact-less information on the glory of Zionism not have ANY information in it?

by Noel Sat Sep 04, 2004 18:10

I suspect you're not referring to the millions of Jews who were forced from Arab countries before 1948. They are not quite as convenient a debating tool.

And try and think up your own funny put downs. The pop-up comment is copyright.

by Donal Sat Sep 04, 2004 22:30

And where did i speak in favour of the Arab states? You're changing the subject, and once again proving your inability to make a consistent argument.

On the one hand, you attack us for trying to look at the crimes that have been committed against certain people which led those people to use violence, hysterically stating that violence against civilians cannot be justified, as if an analysis of someone's reason for acting amounts to a justification of their actions

On the other hand, you imply that driving Palestinians from their land is ok because Jews were driven out of other countries.

This is hypocrisy.

Also:

First you claimed that Israel has not stolen Palestinian land and tried to deny that the Palestinians driven from their homes were refugees, then you switched to saying that it's ok for them to be made refugees because many Jews were also refugees. You're contradicting yourself. Which is it? Were they driven from their land or not?

I already stated that i understand what led victims of anti-semitism to embrace Zionism. There's no double standards in my argument. To claim that i'm ignoring the crimes committed against Jews is simply untrue. Look at my first post on this thread.

And if you can't construct a logical argument, don't bother trying to debate this any further with me.

by ben gurrier Sun Sep 05, 2004 01:20

So the rejection of the 1947 UNO resolution is all the fault of the Arabs .....

Maybe your wee Zionist history book has omitted to explain how the Zionists murdered Count Bernadotte the UNO representative who was trying to get acceptance of the resolution on the ground .......

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0995/9509083.htm

by Fiona Mon Sep 06, 2004 08:55

Is it true the CIA supplied schoolbooks to Muslim children telling them to kill infidels? I heard something about that. Anyone got any links?

by Realist Mon Sep 06, 2004 13:41

And stop retreading the same old claptrap again and again. Since this thread was originally about the horrors in Beslan, why don't you all send an email for the book of condolences to russiane@indigo.ie. If you can visit the embassy in person it's 184-186 orwell road rathgar.

If you do take the time to do this, please just express your condolences try not to put together some lame lecture about the follies of Russian foreign policy etc.

Getting so sick of apologists on this site.

by Fergal Mon Sep 06, 2004 13:44

Would it hurt you people to pause for a few moments before launching into the usual "I can see how a person might be driven to such terrorism" and "what about the dead kids in Palastine?" refrains? This isn't to say that they aren't valid points, just that it's a sign of a mind more concerned with political argument than human suffering that the immediate response is political rather than an expression of sympathy. This is exactly the kind of thing that gives ammunition to the right, and more specifically to neo-cons who argue that the left has become morally decadent by abandoning it's tradition of international solidarity with the opressed in favour of a pro-forma anti-westernism.

The post that began this thread is, I suspect a piece of wishful thinking. The terrorists are so vile that one cannot in good conscience, support them. So what do you do? Claim that they are US-supported. That way you can score a few political points off the genuinely held sympathy of others. Shortly someone will be claiming that it's all about chechnya's oil reserves.

by Chekov Mon Sep 06, 2004 13:55

All this crap about moral-relativism and apologists and so on is just that - crap.

I doubt whether there are more than a handful of lunatics in the world who think that the hostage taking at the school is anything other than barbaric. And I don't think that you'll find anybody denying that.

But what makes the assembled right-wingers such appalling hypocrites is the fact that they remained utterly silent, and in some cases they supported, the murder of 120,000 Chechnyan civilians by the Russian armed forces over the last decade.

It is quite right and proper, when such an atrocity takes place, to ask why the people who are leading the condemnations have been supporting much larger atrocities in the same place in the past. The left, the good bits of it anyway, has no problem in condemning atrocities no matter who they come from. The right only ever condemns atrocities when they are committed by official enemies and goes out of its way to justify and apologise for atrocities committed by official friends.

All this talk of moral relativism and apologists is just another example of Goebbel's maxim - accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you are doing. Hypocrites and terror apologists.

by Fergal Mon Sep 06, 2004 15:22

I think I made it quite clear that I agree that the points raise re: the origin of the terrorism were well made, merely that they were only half the story. Chekov you neatly illustrate the problems that arise when it comes to any duiscussion about terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise). Each side only condemns their ideological opponents. So the right (justifiably) say "what about suicide bomb victims?" while (unjustifiably) failing to give a shit about Palestinian victims. Then the left do the opposite.If it is indeed right and proper to ask what the reasons for an atrocity were, why don't we start asking what drives Israel to commit it's atrocities?

Of course, this happens only amongst some, not all of those on either side of the argument. I think it's a bit much of you to say that none of the right are willing to be even-handed on the issue (although I'd guess that a good deal less of them are, than are on the left) but all those on either side who aren't are hypocrites as far as I'm concerned. Your comment regarding the "good bits" of the left does at least seem to acknowlege that there are "bad bits", ie, those taking the sort of apologist stance I've referred to. Things have come to a pretty pass when only some of the left will condemn atrocities.

But please, quit the "assembled right-winger" stuff. You've never met me, so don't presume to know my politics. As it happens, I lsee myself as part the left. Hopefully one of the good parts.

by Chekov Mon Sep 06, 2004 15:37

"Chekov you neatly illustrate the problems that arise when it comes to any duiscussion about terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise). Each side only condemns their ideological opponents."

This is sort of odd on a couple of scores. Firstly you seem to be saying that I am not condemning the actions of the school-hostage takers, whereas I clearly wrote that I think such actions are "barbaric". The same holds true for my opinions on suicide bombings against civilian targets by the way.

There is also the factor that I'd consider each and every terrorist group in the world today (state and non-state) to be my ideological opponents. Islamicists and capitalist imperialists are both about as far away as you can get from my anarchism as you can get.

So, how on earth can you say that I 'neatly illustrate' the problems???

by Fergal Mon Sep 06, 2004 15:46

Don't get so defensive mate. Not everything posted on this site is a criticism you know. I said you illustrated them, not that you were guilty of them. I was saying that you made a good point.

I'm not an anarchist myself, but I certainly agree with you that terrorists of all kind are the enemies of us all, even if some of us don't see them that way. The point I was raising (and not, I repeat, against you) was that too many people pick an enemy to condemn and go easy on anyone who's in opposition to that enemy.

by RJP Mon Sep 06, 2004 15:46

Anyone found out the names of those three Spetsnatz soldiers who were killed in Beslan? does anyone else feel for them or feel sorry for their families? They wear a uniform so they must be nothing but jackbooted assasins right? Perhaps spare a thought too for the tens of thousands of Russian servicement slaughtered by the Chechens, in violence precipitated by terrorists. Before you bleat on about the carpet combing of Grozny and human rights abuses, deportations etc, I know about them and condemn them.

It's a savage war too, but I have zero sympathy for the Chechen resistance. Chechnya is a republic which is part of Russia and the Kremlin has the right to exert power (in a legal manner) over its own territory. I just feel sorry for the normal people who have voted for a constitution and a president. They have also voted 80% to stay part of Russia. Chechnya as part of Russia is vital if there is to be any chance of Caucasian stability. Do not try and justify current Chechen seperatism, the original movement was for a secular state, but when that failed due to indifference from large swathes of the population it quickly became consumed by the radicals. The Chechen 'liberation' movement should command no international respect or sympathy. They are nothing but illegal terrorist scum. If they attack a small defencless town and shoot kids in the back and bayonet them when they ask for water, they are beyond redemption

Chekov, as much as I admire your idealism regarding the left's acknowledgement of atrocities on both sides, I don't think you can deny that there is a definite bias towards the non-state side in almost every argument. I'm not saying it's from you, but I think you have to agree with me on the point. I have always voted left, both in elections and referenda, but the leftism on display here is not representative of a proper left. It just seems like a lot of fractured, bitter movements sniping at each other with no clear agenda.


PS: It's amazing how a post about Chechnya gets to Palestine bandwagon hitched onto it so easily. Probably because it's so much easier for people here to go to Israel and write sentimental guff from a hostel near the wailing wall. Awful, 6th class essay stuff most of it.

Has anyone emailed anything for the book of condolences to the russian embassy yet? russiane@indigo.ie.

by Chekov Mon Sep 06, 2004 16:02

Fergal: apologies, I assumed you were refering to what I wrote as an illustration. I too was not refering to you among the assembled right wingers - so right back at ya ;-)

RJP wrote: "They have also voted 80% to stay part of Russia. Chechnya as part of Russia is vital if there is to be any chance of Caucasian stability. Do not try and justify current Chechen seperatism, the original movement was for a secular state, but when that failed due to indifference from large swathes of the population it quickly became consumed by the radicals."

Which is an utterly laughable account of recent Chechnyan history. The original movement failed through indifference? Ha ha. That and hundreds and thousands of Russian troops, Grozhny raised to the ground and a mountain of bodies. A referendum which takes place after the country has been destroyed and where everybody knows that the wrong result will lead to another round of mass murder is a little way short of a free and fair election I think!

Finally, I do feel for the russian conscripts who are as much the victims of the war as anybody. However, you can not blame the chechens for fighting back against an invasion, you can blame Putin though for sending them as cannon fodder to murder and be murdered by strangers. There is a good leaflet, making this very point, put out by Moscow anarchists at the rally after the school hostage incident which is available at the link below:

"Let Putin wage alone war in Chechnya, not sending others there! Let Basayev occupy Kreml and Duma instead of taking innocent children to hostages! It is their quarrel, not ours! Let us stop them!"

by RJP Mon Sep 06, 2004 17:11

It's actually quite true Chekov. This is not some romantic, idealistic freedom movement. Plus the Russian troops were not invading Chechnya. That would imply that Chechnya was a sovereign state, which it wasn't. Which is isn't. Which it never will be hopefully. Unfortunately I don't have any flyers to quote soundbyte ideologies from so I'll just put some of this in context the old fashioned way.

On declaration of independence in 1991, the brutal opportunist General Dudaev worked hard to establish Chechnya as the ultimate criminal state. On declaration of independence a catalogue of criminal activity began, including murder, intimidation, robbery, drug smuggling, gun-running, hijackings and extortion. Unfortunately this sort of behaviour could be found all around the remnants of the USSR, but the Chechens were really excelling at it. Dudaev however, realised that he needed an emotional and cultural crux upon which to hinge his madcap bid for Chechen independence. The Islam in Chechnya (roughly 70% practicing) is of the Sufi brand which is based more around the traditional Clan structure of the region and less around Mosques. This obviously made it easeir for it to survive to the Soviet purges against religion. The Cambridge academic John Dunlop describes Dudaev's decision to introduce Sharia law as 'opportunistic.' Dudaev had never been a religious person. He was a general in the Soviet air force, and could never have risen that high if he was an openly practising Muslim. He recognised the unifying power of Islam and attempted to turn it into "an instrument for the manipulation of mass awareness," in Dunlop's words.

Indeed the dubious nature of distinct Chechen nationalism and their catcalls of "we're being oppressed because we're islamic," is crystallised by Valeri Tishkov, an academic on the subject.

"The romantic image of Chechen freedom fighters cannot account for simple but profound things: Islam is used be secessionaist leaders not only to better define the enemy but also to attract sympathy and support through Pan Islamic solidarity. As individuals, the leaders behave no differently to the rest of Russia's population. Most members of Dudaev's delegation during the 1994 engotiations were drinking alcohol, eating pork and smoking tobacco, as do many other Chechens I know personally."

Do you see where I'm going with this Chekov. It's easy to cry foul when Russia unleashes its military power, but you have to understand that they were reacting to a rebellion within a part of their country, a rebellion that was established on a totally false representation of Chechen life at the time. Dudaev hitched Chechen nationalism onto the Pan-Islamic bandwagon and now kids ore being shot in Beslan. It's not something that you can control. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, the likes of Basaev do not represent what it means to be Chechen. The action of Russia, preceived as being brutal, and indeed it was at times was also fuelled by by very real fears of what could happen. Concessions to the seperatists could breal up the federation, a disaster, and much was and is at stake in terms of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea. before your bang on about oil gas etc, the Soviets built these pipelines through their own territories and have a right to maintain them. Several republics have benefitted massively from them, Azerbaijan (which is now sovereign) a prime example of thriving modernity.

Anyway, back to Chechnya. Dudaev had rigged his election in 1994 with his dodgy democratic credentials and his hire-purchase islamic attitudes, even Yeltsin could see that in his vodka stupor, and was courting Russian intervention. Unfortunately and sadly, Russian Generals had a far better opinion of their army then was actually the case. Demoralised, conscripted and poorly equipped, the soliders were butchered. Frustrated and frightened, they took revenge in a series of vicious reprisals before retreating. Putin hit them harder in 1999 and with Grozny now is Russian control the rebels have been reduced to the most extreme tactics, taking help from whoever would offer it. It is this inability of a once mighty military to decisively crush these militants that gave the resistance the time and the space to radicalise their movement and create the environment for the appalling scenes they have carried out on fellow citizens of the Russian Federation.

The initiative rests very much with Moscow. They have the opportunity to take the moral high ground now, a chance they had and wasted in the nineties. People like Basaev cannot be negotiated with but moderates such as President Alkhanov now in place who has said that he may yet talk with Aslan Maskhadov, who masterminded the original defeat of the Russians in Grozny before fleeing to fight from the hills when the army returned and ousted the rebel elements. However, that glimmer of hope may have vanished with what happened in Beslan. Putin will have to think long and hard about the next step. But it is clear that Chechen sepratism has cut its own throat. Moderate Chechen nationalism (in the form of a republic) may well have a future and that might be the best hope.

After all that's happened though, it is important to remember that the genesis of this Chechen conflict rests not with Moscow, but with the radical antics of Dudaev who hijacked Islamic extremism and then couldn't control it.

Just remember, what happened on Saturday was another assault on our way of life, our western way of life and all its different strains (right, left, anarchist, conservative.) Just as September 11th was. Unlike the aftermath of 9/11 though , the Caucasian crisis cannot be solved by force of arms alone. It is now we have to hope that Putin can have a strong voice in addition to his strong arm.

by ZXBarcalow Mon Sep 06, 2004 17:56

Donal:
“No, I mean condemn. Go on give it a try.
Try condemning terrorists for deliberately targeting and killing children without your usual auto-responses.”

Donal, condemnations are heard from all sections of the left every time a terrorist outrage happens. Pretty much every ‘leftist’ writer, commentator, publication, political group etc condemns terrorism. You would know this if you had bothered to check.

There is plenty of apologetics for terrorism –such as radical Islamists who condone suicide bombings and also many western commentators who defend Israeli, American and British atrocities (and, as in the case of Russia, the atrocities of western clients as well). You, it seems, have trouble condemning western violence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what it seems.

“I criticise Palestinian terrorists for being terrorists. Killing kids deliberately, that sort of thing.”

But what about the 500+ Palestinian kids killed by Israeli troops since the start of the intifada? Or the thousands of Iraqi kids killed by the US and Britain? Or the tens of thousands of Chechen kids killed by the Russians? Do you condemn theses killings?

I only ask because you yourself are making such a big deal about formally condemning terrorism and atrocities. So as you put it: Go on, give it a try.

by RJP Mon Sep 06, 2004 18:03

We've moved on from that and were exploring the roots of the Chechen conflict before you brought up Israel/Palestine. Yet again.

Have you sent an email of condolence to the russian embassy yet. russiane@embassy.ie.

Go on give it a try. Good lad.

by ZXBarcalow Mon Sep 06, 2004 18:07

I wasnt talking to you, RJP. I was replying to Donal, who had been talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Try to pay more attention, "good lad".

by RJP Mon Sep 06, 2004 18:21

So I'll take pity and be nice to you . .

The problem with these threads is you have to at least follow some sort of running order, otherwise nothing can be discussed. If you wish to discuss Palestinian terrorism then go to a different thread. It's not like you were contributing to the original discussion anyway. You're contributing nothing. I saw your ridiculous diatribes against the Defence Forces the other day. Come back when you have an issue.

Remember that book of condolences: russiane@indigo.ie. Your parents will be proud of you.

by RJP Mon Sep 06, 2004 18:29

To be honest, I'm not surprised the Chechen issue has got such short shrift on this site. Too complex, too messy and requires too much time to even begin to analyse for most of the soundbite posters here. Disappointed by the lack of ambition and people just wanting to cloud an issue with the usual moral high ground shite.

by Donal Mon Sep 06, 2004 18:32

Sorry if i'm posting on the wrong thread but:

ZXBarcalow: i believe you're talking to Noel, not me. I've been hogging this thread with condemnations of western violence

by Noel Mon Sep 06, 2004 19:20

ZXBarcalow,

The anti-terrorist posts were mine and definitely, undeniably, categorically not from Donal.

However, I accept RJP's point that this thread has been hijacked for the Palestine cause celebre of this site's anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist/anti-Semite (delete as applicable)posters.

Although linking one set of Islamist child killers with another is not too off-topic.

by R. Isible Mon Sep 06, 2004 19:22

RJP, your whole post is an unabashed apology for the violence committed by the Russian state against an indpedence movement. You are repetitive in your calls for emails of condolence to the Russian embassy, but have remained strangely silent on the subject of calls for condolence for the Chechens murdered by Russians. Just to make it clear to you, I condemn both atrocities and although the Chechen dead are greater in number I find it hard to attempt any sort of quantification of atrocity. I hope in any reply that you make that you will be equally clear in condemning both the atrocities committed by the Russians and the Chechens.

QUOTE: "Do you see where I'm going with this Chekov. It's easy to cry foul when Russia unleashes its military power, but you have to understand that they were reacting to a rebellion within a part of their country, a rebellion that was established on a totally false representation of Chechen life at the time."

Sort of like 1916 eh? It's weird that you seem to believe that a military atrocity is justified because it's reacting to a "false representation" of something. I remain to be convinced that you are correct in your analysis about the falsity, but even leaving that aside, what sort of criterion is "falsity of representation of a way of life" for attacking civilians?

QUOTE: "The action of Russia, preceived as being brutal, and indeed it was at times was also fuelled by by very real fears of what could happen."

Why do you speak of it as "perceived as being brutal"? The only sense in which you could be bringing up perception is if you intend to deny that it was in actuality brutal. Please clarify whether or not the Russian actions in invasion, murder, rape and torture are brutal. I know you said that "indeed it was at times", but your wording obscures your meaning.

QUOTE: "Concessions to the seperatists could breal up the federation, a disaster,"

So what? Ireland separating from the Brits was a disaster for those of them that had vested interests here. Nevertheless we had a right to self determination, so do the Chechens and so does any other group.

QUOTE: "and much was and is at stake in terms of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea. before your bang on about oil gas etc, the Soviets built these pipelines through their own territories and have a right to maintain them."

What right?

QUOTE: "Several republics have benefitted massively from them, Azerbaijan (which is now sovereign) a prime example of thriving modernity."

And this is relevant to the argument exactly how?

Your post was interesting in its details but appears to contain some specious arguments. It'd be nice if you could clarify these points as otherwise it would appear that you are riding the bloodied coat tails of tragedy for your own purposes.

by RJP Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:05

Some responses . .


First off, Chechnya cannot be compared to here circa 1916. Chechen separatism is based on inflaming the north caucasus and propagating Islamic extremism. It also is a border link for the Russian federation, unlike Ireland was for the Empire. Very different situations. There is no romanticism in the Chechen movement, it's built on a false representation of the Chechen religion by extremists, bent on destabilising the region.

The break-up of the Russian Federation.


This would be a disaster for the region. The only way for a stabilisation of the Caucasian problem is to create a series of autonomous republics, such as North and South Ossetia and indeed Tatarstan, a huge region which has remained remarkably stable. It remains so because for once Moscow played diplomacy throughto its endgame and it was successful during those 1994 discussions, The Chechens are a different story. Chechnya was never invaded. You cannot invade a yourself, Chechnya is part of the Russian federation. It's army is the Russian army. The other side are nothing but illegal combatants and terrorists. It's a minor technicality but Moscow is essentially redeploying troops to another part of its own country. Chechnya has been granted status as an autonomous republic. However, they have not shown the capability to stabilise the country and remain beholdent to the beast they awoke during Dudaev;'s original dreams of an Islamic based Mountain Confederation of th North Caucasus (KNK) in 1994. He modified his demands for a more limited chechen Republic in 1994 but unfortuntaely made the mistake of enlisting the help of Islamic extremists (wahabiists primarily) to give the whole Islamic Chechnya argument a leg up. It's a log way from the sufi-based Islam of most Chechens. The Chechens cannot simply decide to secede from the Russian federation. It is a republic on the borders of the federation, close to many flashpoints such as Georgia and indeed the Iraqi border, The Russians need to safeguard their borders, I'll admit they could be doing it in a more democratic manner, but to them it's an insurrection within Russia and it has them on a war footing.

If every small republic wanted total independence the border of the Russian federation would be a porous mass of impoverished tiny states, unable to defend themselves (therefore increasingly prone to radicals) and totally incapable of managing the huge resources of the Caucasus. This is a huge region and its resources need to be managed with the whole region in mind, not trying to satisfy the demands of several tiny nations, without the infrastructure to benefit propoerly from oil , gas etc. It is also entirely understandable that the Russians want to keep an eye and a profit on oil supplies ftom the Caspian sea. Black gold, like it or not, is a global currency and radical Chechen sepratism is unlikely top change that, merely lead to greater instability in the fuel markets.

Russian Brutality

Indeed, and I used the word perceived wrongly, there have been awful acts committed by the Russian military. I blame the culture of brutality and abuse which has become endemic in the former red army. Suicide is a massive problem. The psychological cost is going to be a massive cost to bear for the Russian state for decades to come. Someone said earlier on this thread, quoting an anarchist pamphlet, that this was Putin's war, not that of the normal people. I beg to differ, Russian people are immensely proud of their country. I saw a channel 4 news report on deaths of Russian troops in Chechnya. At the soldier's funeral near Novgorod, his mother was saying how important it was that Russia stayed in Chechnya. I don't think we'll be seeing a pull out soon. What is now needed is new tactics including discussions with any moderates with real power. All the chechens separatists, with the exception of Basaev of course, are condemning what happened in Beslan. However it was undoubtedly Chechen lead, so how and why should the Russians bother negotiating with the so-called leaders of Chechen nationalism if they obviously have no real power and it's the extremists who are calling the plays. It'sa messy situation but coordinated military operations are going to have a part to play.

Just to finalise though I have nothing but sympathy for the innocent Chechens who have suffered at the hands of indiscriminate Russian military actions. Essentially killed by their own government. Employment, housing etc. That's what your average Chechen wants. After the first Chechen war ended in '96, Russia failed to invest in reconstruction. They need to do that now, that is how they will turn the tide against radicals and starve them of any public respect or support. Chechen people want normal lives. The receent election was hardly perfect, there was only one real candidate, but there was an incredibly high turnout which means that they want a part of a process to help them select a leader.

IT's a messy, messy matter. This isn't an invasion though, remember that. It's internal military action. Recent attacks, before Beslan, into Ingushetia and Dagestan has shown the true intentions of separatists-to destabilise and inflame old neighbour v neighbour hatreds amidst these small republics. What does killing people in Ingushetia or Ossetia have to do with Chechen independence. The Russians have to try to hold all this together somehow. It's not going to be esy but let's hope it can be done.

They are just some of my view on the matter

regards

by RJP Tue Sep 07, 2004 13:09

Just to say, I'm not hanging to any blood stained coat-tails for my own purpose. I have no purpose, I'm just discussing the issue. My position would be though, in a conflict between nation/state (where there is a real government, not a dictatorship i.e not Iraq under Saddam or N.Korea) and illegal combatants/terrorists (as is the case of Chechnya) I would always put my trust in the nation/state.

by Nation/state Wed Sep 08, 2004 00:04

RJP the trouble with your argument -- state violence is better than the violence of non state actors, so long as the state isn't a dictatorship -- is that it falls the moment you look at the violent history of the worlds oldest democracies. Take England for example... In their conquests of the world, long before todya's states existed in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, they destroyed entire peoples to get their bloody hands on raw materials, slaves, etc... Some of these people, rather than be subjugated or murdered, tried to defend themselves and probably employed what we'd call terrorist methods to do so.

by RJP Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:28

Imperfect I know. It's not my argument really, it's just where I place my trust. And the alternatives are?

If anyone wants to send an email for the book of condolences at the Russian embassy here:

russiane@indigo.ie

Just a small gesture

by until it sleeps Mon Sep 13, 2004 00:30

If 25% of the population has been killed (and I'm sure a much higher percentage of adult males), is it not pretty unlikely that the school terrorists are the same ones the CIA trained all those years ago.
This constant 'blame it on the CIA' tendancy is a little silly

Also, please stop calling EVERYONE you don't like 'right wing'. Its overly simplistic and not a little misleading. Nobody takes Marx literally anymore, even the most hardened lunatic.