The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching this on the news (from about 10:30-14:00) and i have to say i found it rather exciting, obviously it was a terrible ordeal for everyone involved. Especially the poor kids that were practically naked, apparently when they asked for a drink they were told to strip, their clothes were doused with water and they were told to suck the moisture out. Pretty grim stuff.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Page:
Revolver wrote:
> So do you know England by only "capitalist" lessons? =)
> he-he-he =) It's very strange that you're thinking of me as of a
> communist or post-communist representative. Centralized commjunist
> lessons? Well, I've studied for only 4 first years under Gorbachev's
> goverment, so "communist" alphabet and mathematics is the
> same with "capitalist". So I think you're understanding
> that what you have written is absolutely unprooved.
Erm...no. What I know stems from a mixture of the (very little) I was taught at school, my friend Maddy (who lived in Russia for a couple of years; Samara was the area she mainly stayed in), and my own reading about Russia and the former USSR.
Do I think of you as post-communist? Well...yes. After all, the Yeltsin and Putin regimes have been defined by how they deal with Russia after it shat out it's own skeleton post-communism.
And as to what I'm saying being unproved...well, I'm providing lots of evidence to back up what I'm saying. You've provided none. So what I've said has more proof that what you're saying
>
> As I said Chechnya was powered by criminals - now you can find that
> the terrorist's leader who captured Beslan children was under
> investigation since 1988 after he killed two citizens under Orel
> city. And it's only one example.
What, you mean Basayev? Interesting how you don't seem to know his name...
Or do you mean Aslan Maskhadov, the man who was democratically elected by the Chechens shortly before Yeltsin ordered the invasion of Chechnya? Which of the two are you referring to?
Anyway, as I've been saying all the way through our discourse, I'm not denying that the Chechen separatists responsible for Beslan (and the downing of 2 airliners, and various other acts of terrorism) are hateful and savage b@st@rds. What I'm saying is that much of the savagery can be traced back to the numerous atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya. Thus far, your only rebuttal has been "Russian troops wouldn't do that". Well, as Basayev himself used to serve in the Russian Army (for 2 years I believe), I think one can safely assume that you protestations of the Russian military being candidates for the World Humanitarian award are a little wide of the mark.
>
> No need to give me links to digest, I know it quite well.
Really? So how come everything you've said about the Chechen war is stultifyingly incorrect, and bears absolutely no relation to the reports in these links? How come you're continually saying "We are being told the truth", when every link comments on how the Russian media are being discouraged from reporting from Chechnya.
>
> Yes, if criminals have arms, bazooka's and even tanks. Our
> constitution says that we can have only two kinds of armed people -
> army and militia, excluding some private bodyguards and security
> services. Also it says that anyone who will try to capture our
> territory anywhere would be attacked as an enemy. As you remember I
> was talking about criminal army not about just a few bandits with
> basements generals and curnals, finely armed and trained. So bombing
> was necessary to clear town from intruders. Mostly civilians were
> saved but war is a war so you can do nothing with it's victims. I've
> heared nothing about "raping women with gay abandon" as of
> an ordinary fact for all soldiers. Many of soldiers have wifes or
> girlfriends, so only scum would rape. And I think there're many
> rapings in London everyday, though it looks very peacefully.
Yes; the difference being that the rapes in London aren't committed by the Police or the Army. Unlike in Chechnya, where rape is used as a deliberate policy of fear and oppression. Got any evidence to say otherwise apart from "Russians wouldn't do that" (although history show that to be untrue; the women of Berlin 1945 might say differently too), or are you just going to continue to repeat that?
Bombing was necessary? So to save the town, you had to bomb the town? Wow...I never thought I'd see that logic used again after it was tried in Vietnam by the US; they frequently said that, to save a village they had to destroy the village. Unsurprisingly, the people of Vietnam didn't like being shot, bombed, maimed, and raped by their supposed saviours. And so the Americans were driven out of a country that they had no business being in. The same could be said of Chechnya.
Capturing your territory? Let me see if I've got this right; you're saying that native Chechens have no right to govern themselves? Bearing in mind it's only been "your" territory since the mid 1800's, and it belonged to Chechens for 100's of years before that, I'd say they have the better claim.
Attacked as an enemy? So you're going to treat Chechnya as an enemy state and bomb it, are you really surprised that the Chechen people are going to be...well, rather annoyed? If you treat them as an enemy, don't be surprised that they treat you as an enemy, 'kay?
>
> My definition is the same for everybody: don't kill, don't steal,
> don't betray and do forgive. Many of the "rebels" betrayed
> their neighbours and their country, they have stolen much money and
> continue to kill everybody without any look at the human's moral.
Well then according to your definition, you should forgive. Are you willing to forgive the Beslan massacre?
The Chechen rebels would doubtless say that the Russians invaded their land, stole their resources (the oil of Chechnya is rather an important commodity), and those who acquiesed to that invasion are traitors to Chechnya. It's all a matter of perspective, and you seem unable or unwilling to admit that the Chechen people might see things differently from you.
> ------
> "when Nazi forces reached the gates of the Chechen capital,
> Grozny, Chechen separatists staged a rebellion against Russian rule.
> In response, the next year Stalin deported more than 1 million
> Chechens, Ingush, and other North Caucasian peoples to Siberia and
> Central Asia on the pretext that they had collaborated with the
> Nazis."
>
> ------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm
> -------
>
> I guess that all of those cowards must be happy that they he didn't
> kill all of them. All of this was done absolutely right or you wish
> to stand and to protect Nazi? Or British people prefer to live side
> by side with traitos taking off their hats every morning saying
> "how do you do?".
Okay; the key word there is "pretext". I appreciate your grasp of the language isn't 100%, but what that means is that they weren't actually collaborating with the Nazi's. Stalin merely lied and said they were in order to murder millions of people opposed to Soviet rule. If someone does something as a pretext, it means that they are doing it for a reason other than the reason they give. For example;
"The liberation of Iraq from Saddam was the pretext for the invasion"
"The Emergency Committee tried to overthrow Gorbachev using 'Protection of the Union' as their pretext"
"The Beslan massacre gave Putin a pretext to suppress the Chechen people further still"
So, your clumsy attempt to provoke a reaction aside, I'm afraid that what you say doesn't add to your argument; it adds to mine.
For the record, the Baltic states also rebelled against Soviet rule during WW2. As did Ukraine. In fact, every nation that the Soviet Union ruled took the side of the Nazi's against the Soviets. Russia was the only exception to that. It says rather a lot about Stalinist Soviet rule that Slavic people found the Nazi's preferable.
>
> If you're thinking that I'm trying to sympathize to Stalin I'll say I
> hate him because my family was sent to Central Asia because my
> ancestors struggled with Emperiour Army against bolsheviks and though
> I'm not a rebel and I'm not killing children with the goal of
> separating.
Fair enough. However, as the violence only began after Yeltsin authorised the invasion of Chechnya, it seems that you were happily living side by side with these "cowards" for 40 years. I hope you took the opportunity to raise your hat and ask "how do you do" whilst you had the chance as these "cowards" are now resisting a brutal occupation by Russian forces.
>
> Yes, as I've already said war is a war. It brings death and
> destruction. But it was not Russian troops who started it.
I see; so it was the Chechens who bombarded their own cities to rubble was it? And if this is a war...well, there is a saying; "All is fair in love and war". You seem to be implying that it's fair to reduce cities to rubble in order to win a war. If that is the case, then terrorism is a perfectly fair tactic to resort to in order to win. The Russian troops use conventional weapons, the terrorists use fear. If you think it's alright for your side to commit their atrocities, then I'm afraid you don't exactly have any right to complain about the other side doing the same.
>
> If you want to return to history, let's make it but a little bit
> earlier when Russia was kept under invasions from Crimea, Caucasus
> and all of the East. Our emperiour Peter was called the Great not
> because he killed many chechens but stopped all that black times for
> Russia.
...and he stopped those Black times by touring Europe and gaining lots of scientific insights which he used to drag Russia from medieval into modern times. And he also invaded a hell of a lot of countries. One of which was Chechnya.
I don't actually understand what you're trying to say here; are you saying that the Causasus were only invaded in order to guarantee safety from the Ottoman empire? If that's the case, the Ottomans are long dead and so there is no longer any need to occupy any of the Caucasus regions, is there?
> Demonising? Then his speech wasn't well translated to english. All
> that he said is that terrorism became a cancer to all of the world
> and we must fight together against it. And if he was using this
> tragedy as a convenient excuse he would certainly send there just a
> few bombers that could make Chechnya a part of the history or just
> command to FSB to find anyone who has a chechen nation and kill
> them.
If there was anything left to bomb in Chechnya, I'm sure he would. And who knows; perhaps even more Chechen men are now being disappeared than were before this attack. He also said that Zakayev and other moderate pro-independence Chechens were just as bad as Maskhadod, which is rather dishonest of him. It'd be a bit like saying that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Quaida...
>
> So I tell you again and again: it was not russian troops who started
> that war.
And I tell you again and again, it was. It's just a matter of your perspective and mine; you say that the war started because of "Chechen rebels and criminals". I say it started because a democratically elected Chechen leader declared independance and Russian troops invaded in order to crush that independance.
> Just go to shooting gallery and try to shoot out 50 points with 5
> bullets. The weight of an old AK-47 is nearly 4-5 killogramms so try
> to hit the moving target that is 100-150 meters away from you. I can
> bet $100 that you'd miss if you're not a sniper.
So you don't have any evidence of mines being planted by Chechens then? I didn't think you would somehow.
Oh, I'm sure I would miss. But you know what? If I was firing against troops invading my country who had bombed my capital city flat and who were making thousands of my friends 'disappear', I'm damn sure I'd make the effort to get better.
>
> And, please, tell me how could you training "on the job"
> while ordinary citizens don't have any arms! Or maybe it's normal to
> keep arms under your pillow and a self-aiming granade launcher at the
> backyards in your country? And everyday after a good supper you're
> disassebling your old AK-47 or M-16? It's my time to "utter
> cack".
The normal citizens in Beslan seemed to have their own arms. So much so that the Spetznaz had to borrow ammunition from the local people. So why did those ordinary citizens have AK-47's?
>
> It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as
> something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah
> and
> Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that
> sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
>
> That's not actually the same...
Why not? Give me a single solitary reason why it isn't the same.
>
> SO WHAT CRIMES DID RUSSIAN COMMIT?
> Can you name me just one russian who have kiddnapped an ordinary
> chechen, made him a slave and then sent his ear to his relatives in
> order to get a few thousands dollars? And certainly children killings
> are not crimes against humanity, am I right?
No, because as I've repeatedly said (and despite your efforts to constantly claim otherwise) the Beslan atrocity was just that; an atrocity. So are the crimes committed by the Russian forces. You need reminding of them? Look at my initial post in this thread that caused you such anguish. Can I name a single russian who has committed an atrocity? How about Colonel Yuri Budanov, who murdered a Chechen girl by strangulation. Oddly, he's just been pardoned by Putin himself. I guess after Beslan, the Russian army needs as many murderers of Chechens as it can get, eh?
[EDIT]
Seems that the pardon has been withdrawn due to the outcry it caused, though his lawyers have said they will reapply for it. So then; I've given you your 1 Russian. Are you still going to claim that the whole army is good and pure?
>
> You just can't define what is black and what is white.
I've not tried to. You on the other hand are claiming that everything Russia does is justifiable, and anything the Chechens do is bad and evil.
>
> Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims
> that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that
> they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the
> media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of
> fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars
> is hard to track down.
>
> So that makes me understand why are you so blind.
Heh. Nice attempt to distract, but a failed one; fact is, I've given more detail about Chechnya, it's history, and the current situation than you've managed to display. Which rather leads me to believe one of two things;
1 - You don't actually know what you're talking about
2 - You're not actually a Russian; just a sad, Bell-lite troll.
Could possibly be both actually, but there y'go. In either case, I'm enjoying the chance to marshall my own thoughts about Chechnya and put them in some sort of order. So cheers for that!
> So who is making crimes against humanity? Those who defends a part of
> his country or those hwo kill children, capture "Nord-ost"
> theatre, blow houses and metro stations? If you don't know the right
> answer well than I can give you an advice: ask your mom, she would
> certanly tell you that children killer don't have any right to
> breathe.
If Chechnya is part of your country (and it is not), how can you defend it by bombing the hell out of it and murdering, torturing, and raping it's civilians? I'm afraid that you still haven't made a convincing case for that beyond "Chechnya is ours. Because it is. And it's ours".
Child killers certainly don't have any right to breathe. So how come Colonel Budanov still lives? Seems that Russia is happy for Chechen youth to be butchered and only gets upset when it's own are horrifically killed.
>
> Teens of the UK are butchers and rapers? I can't believe my eyes -
> what are
> trying to say is awful.
Mwahahahahaha! Funny how your language skill suddenly lets you down there. Again, nice attempt to provoke a reaction, but I'll repeat; I'm talking about the Russian teenagers in the Russian army who have killed and raped Chechens.
>
> No. I can't see that you're all ears. Why do you want me to to
> approve my words? Actually I'm not a journalist, not a military man.
> I'm just an ordinary civilian, trying to earn some more money for his
> wife. Just try to imagine that you are wrong, try to stand my way.
> And it's not me who refuse to believe. I have many strong arguments
> that you don't want to hear. And you can't understand just one thing
> - Chechnya is a part of Russia, we respect Chechens as any other
> nation we live with.
So where are these many strong arguments? I keep asking you to produce them and all you keep saying is "Russia wouldn't do that", "It's a war", and "You don't understand". Oh, and as your opening statement was along the lines of "I don't care what you say, I won't listen", then you'll pardon me for laughing at your feeble attempt to make out that I'm being closed minded. I'm more than willing to be persuaded, but you're not saying anything that would persuade me so far. Perhaps if you actually produced some concrete evidence rather than restating your own opinion and expecting me to accept it as fact, you might be more persuasive?
>
> 1. This war was planned - large "rebels" basement with
> professional soldiers.
Proof of that please. Perhaps post an internet link or an article to give some evidence of it.
> 2. Hired assassins from middle east and africa. What the hell they
> were doing there?
You mean the jihadi Islamic terrorists? I'm not sure; maybe they enjoyed fighting Russians who occupied Afghanistan so much that they welcomed another excuse to do it.
> 3. Stolen weapons.
Mm, I must admit; the number of Russian soldiers who sold weapons to the Chechen rebels in order to supplement their meagre pay is quite disgusting, isn't it?
> 4. Cruelty during Chechen autonomy. Just look how they judge
> themselves by cutting heads, fingers or ears.
Ah, so now you're accepting that Chechnya was autonomous? Funny; you were saying it was part of Russia before. Anyway, could you provide proof of this cruelty committed by Chechens against Chechens. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true what with Sharia law being rather...strict. But I'd like a little proof that you actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
> 5. Russian troops could burn out everything in Chechnya using not
> more then ten rocket-firing complexes. Think why they didn't do that
> and prefered to fight head-to-head not behind somebody's back like
> Chechen terrorists.
Umm...they damn near have burnt everything out. Your desire for them to fight head to head is admirably immature of you; what you're saying is that you want them to face superior forces and die. Alas, people are rarely keen to die so easily. And so they will commit acts of terror because it's the most effective way of fighting back. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say how unfair it is.
> 6. The last and the most important thing: what was the reason of that
> war if they had everything that they wanted to?
Well, as Russian forces invaded Checnya when they declared independence, I would say they didn't have everything they wanted. Why, what do you think the Chechens want?
>
> The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled
> against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact
> that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some
> evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all
> you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no
> proof
> of it.
>
> The victim of more than 300 innocent children and civilians is not
> enought for you, I guess.
~sigh~ No, it isn't. The horrible death of 300 innocents is not proof that Chechens didn't initially struggle against children and civilians (by the way, "initially" means "at first" or "in the beginning"). Are you going to keep invoking their death as an excuse for every act of savagery that Russian forces have and will continue to commit? I suppose it's working for Putin, but I would have hoped you'd attempt to give some actual evidence.
> I've never told that all the Chechens are bad. I just want you to
> stop telling that it's all Russian falut because it's absolutely
> unprooved.
Well, I've provided lots of evidence for what I'm saying. You've provided none for your belief. So I'll continue to say that the Russian invasion and atrocities in Chechnya, because I have evidence to back that up.
>
> Though I've spent almost all of my childhood at the USSR I have many
> good things to remember. Free education, free gyms and sport
> sections. Yes, they were not good enough as you had but it didn't
> stopped us to win competitions like Olympic games.
Jolly good; I'm glad you have happy childhood memories. However, that doesn't really change the fact that the Chechen people were once independent. As the IRA have shown in Ireland, as ETA have shown in Spain, and as the Kurdish people have shown in Iraq, people have rather strong opinions on their freedom and independence and are willing to fight for it. I'm not disputing the plus points of the USSR. What I am saying is that rewriting history doesn't remove a nation's desire to be free and independent.
>
> You just got used to think that my totalitarian goverment was an
> enemy to your capitalistic. Now it's time to get use to that we're
> all childs of our mother earth. Live and respect, love and work.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. So when will Russia withdraw from Chechnya and show them respect and love by granting them their independence thus allowing them to live and work in peace?
> So do you know England by only "capitalist" lessons? =)
> he-he-he =) It's very strange that you're thinking of me as of a
> communist or post-communist representative. Centralized commjunist
> lessons? Well, I've studied for only 4 first years under Gorbachev's
> goverment, so "communist" alphabet and mathematics is the
> same with "capitalist". So I think you're understanding
> that what you have written is absolutely unprooved.
Erm...no. What I know stems from a mixture of the (very little) I was taught at school, my friend Maddy (who lived in Russia for a couple of years; Samara was the area she mainly stayed in), and my own reading about Russia and the former USSR.
Do I think of you as post-communist? Well...yes. After all, the Yeltsin and Putin regimes have been defined by how they deal with Russia after it shat out it's own skeleton post-communism.
And as to what I'm saying being unproved...well, I'm providing lots of evidence to back up what I'm saying. You've provided none. So what I've said has more proof that what you're saying
>
> As I said Chechnya was powered by criminals - now you can find that
> the terrorist's leader who captured Beslan children was under
> investigation since 1988 after he killed two citizens under Orel
> city. And it's only one example.
What, you mean Basayev? Interesting how you don't seem to know his name...
Or do you mean Aslan Maskhadov, the man who was democratically elected by the Chechens shortly before Yeltsin ordered the invasion of Chechnya? Which of the two are you referring to?
Anyway, as I've been saying all the way through our discourse, I'm not denying that the Chechen separatists responsible for Beslan (and the downing of 2 airliners, and various other acts of terrorism) are hateful and savage b@st@rds. What I'm saying is that much of the savagery can be traced back to the numerous atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya. Thus far, your only rebuttal has been "Russian troops wouldn't do that". Well, as Basayev himself used to serve in the Russian Army (for 2 years I believe), I think one can safely assume that you protestations of the Russian military being candidates for the World Humanitarian award are a little wide of the mark.
>
> No need to give me links to digest, I know it quite well.
Really? So how come everything you've said about the Chechen war is stultifyingly incorrect, and bears absolutely no relation to the reports in these links? How come you're continually saying "We are being told the truth", when every link comments on how the Russian media are being discouraged from reporting from Chechnya.
>
> Yes, if criminals have arms, bazooka's and even tanks. Our
> constitution says that we can have only two kinds of armed people -
> army and militia, excluding some private bodyguards and security
> services. Also it says that anyone who will try to capture our
> territory anywhere would be attacked as an enemy. As you remember I
> was talking about criminal army not about just a few bandits with
> basements generals and curnals, finely armed and trained. So bombing
> was necessary to clear town from intruders. Mostly civilians were
> saved but war is a war so you can do nothing with it's victims. I've
> heared nothing about "raping women with gay abandon" as of
> an ordinary fact for all soldiers. Many of soldiers have wifes or
> girlfriends, so only scum would rape. And I think there're many
> rapings in London everyday, though it looks very peacefully.
Yes; the difference being that the rapes in London aren't committed by the Police or the Army. Unlike in Chechnya, where rape is used as a deliberate policy of fear and oppression. Got any evidence to say otherwise apart from "Russians wouldn't do that" (although history show that to be untrue; the women of Berlin 1945 might say differently too), or are you just going to continue to repeat that?
Bombing was necessary? So to save the town, you had to bomb the town? Wow...I never thought I'd see that logic used again after it was tried in Vietnam by the US; they frequently said that, to save a village they had to destroy the village. Unsurprisingly, the people of Vietnam didn't like being shot, bombed, maimed, and raped by their supposed saviours. And so the Americans were driven out of a country that they had no business being in. The same could be said of Chechnya.
Capturing your territory? Let me see if I've got this right; you're saying that native Chechens have no right to govern themselves? Bearing in mind it's only been "your" territory since the mid 1800's, and it belonged to Chechens for 100's of years before that, I'd say they have the better claim.
Attacked as an enemy? So you're going to treat Chechnya as an enemy state and bomb it, are you really surprised that the Chechen people are going to be...well, rather annoyed? If you treat them as an enemy, don't be surprised that they treat you as an enemy, 'kay?
>
> My definition is the same for everybody: don't kill, don't steal,
> don't betray and do forgive. Many of the "rebels" betrayed
> their neighbours and their country, they have stolen much money and
> continue to kill everybody without any look at the human's moral.
Well then according to your definition, you should forgive. Are you willing to forgive the Beslan massacre?
The Chechen rebels would doubtless say that the Russians invaded their land, stole their resources (the oil of Chechnya is rather an important commodity), and those who acquiesed to that invasion are traitors to Chechnya. It's all a matter of perspective, and you seem unable or unwilling to admit that the Chechen people might see things differently from you.
> ------
> "when Nazi forces reached the gates of the Chechen capital,
> Grozny, Chechen separatists staged a rebellion against Russian rule.
> In response, the next year Stalin deported more than 1 million
> Chechens, Ingush, and other North Caucasian peoples to Siberia and
> Central Asia on the pretext that they had collaborated with the
> Nazis."
>
> ------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm
> -------
>
> I guess that all of those cowards must be happy that they he didn't
> kill all of them. All of this was done absolutely right or you wish
> to stand and to protect Nazi? Or British people prefer to live side
> by side with traitos taking off their hats every morning saying
> "how do you do?".
Okay; the key word there is "pretext". I appreciate your grasp of the language isn't 100%, but what that means is that they weren't actually collaborating with the Nazi's. Stalin merely lied and said they were in order to murder millions of people opposed to Soviet rule. If someone does something as a pretext, it means that they are doing it for a reason other than the reason they give. For example;
"The liberation of Iraq from Saddam was the pretext for the invasion"
"The Emergency Committee tried to overthrow Gorbachev using 'Protection of the Union' as their pretext"
"The Beslan massacre gave Putin a pretext to suppress the Chechen people further still"
So, your clumsy attempt to provoke a reaction aside, I'm afraid that what you say doesn't add to your argument; it adds to mine.
For the record, the Baltic states also rebelled against Soviet rule during WW2. As did Ukraine. In fact, every nation that the Soviet Union ruled took the side of the Nazi's against the Soviets. Russia was the only exception to that. It says rather a lot about Stalinist Soviet rule that Slavic people found the Nazi's preferable.
>
> If you're thinking that I'm trying to sympathize to Stalin I'll say I
> hate him because my family was sent to Central Asia because my
> ancestors struggled with Emperiour Army against bolsheviks and though
> I'm not a rebel and I'm not killing children with the goal of
> separating.
Fair enough. However, as the violence only began after Yeltsin authorised the invasion of Chechnya, it seems that you were happily living side by side with these "cowards" for 40 years. I hope you took the opportunity to raise your hat and ask "how do you do" whilst you had the chance as these "cowards" are now resisting a brutal occupation by Russian forces.
>
> Yes, as I've already said war is a war. It brings death and
> destruction. But it was not Russian troops who started it.
I see; so it was the Chechens who bombarded their own cities to rubble was it? And if this is a war...well, there is a saying; "All is fair in love and war". You seem to be implying that it's fair to reduce cities to rubble in order to win a war. If that is the case, then terrorism is a perfectly fair tactic to resort to in order to win. The Russian troops use conventional weapons, the terrorists use fear. If you think it's alright for your side to commit their atrocities, then I'm afraid you don't exactly have any right to complain about the other side doing the same.
>
> If you want to return to history, let's make it but a little bit
> earlier when Russia was kept under invasions from Crimea, Caucasus
> and all of the East. Our emperiour Peter was called the Great not
> because he killed many chechens but stopped all that black times for
> Russia.
...and he stopped those Black times by touring Europe and gaining lots of scientific insights which he used to drag Russia from medieval into modern times. And he also invaded a hell of a lot of countries. One of which was Chechnya.
I don't actually understand what you're trying to say here; are you saying that the Causasus were only invaded in order to guarantee safety from the Ottoman empire? If that's the case, the Ottomans are long dead and so there is no longer any need to occupy any of the Caucasus regions, is there?
> Demonising? Then his speech wasn't well translated to english. All
> that he said is that terrorism became a cancer to all of the world
> and we must fight together against it. And if he was using this
> tragedy as a convenient excuse he would certainly send there just a
> few bombers that could make Chechnya a part of the history or just
> command to FSB to find anyone who has a chechen nation and kill
> them.
If there was anything left to bomb in Chechnya, I'm sure he would. And who knows; perhaps even more Chechen men are now being disappeared than were before this attack. He also said that Zakayev and other moderate pro-independence Chechens were just as bad as Maskhadod, which is rather dishonest of him. It'd be a bit like saying that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Quaida...
>
> So I tell you again and again: it was not russian troops who started
> that war.
And I tell you again and again, it was. It's just a matter of your perspective and mine; you say that the war started because of "Chechen rebels and criminals". I say it started because a democratically elected Chechen leader declared independance and Russian troops invaded in order to crush that independance.
> Just go to shooting gallery and try to shoot out 50 points with 5
> bullets. The weight of an old AK-47 is nearly 4-5 killogramms so try
> to hit the moving target that is 100-150 meters away from you. I can
> bet $100 that you'd miss if you're not a sniper.
So you don't have any evidence of mines being planted by Chechens then? I didn't think you would somehow.
Oh, I'm sure I would miss. But you know what? If I was firing against troops invading my country who had bombed my capital city flat and who were making thousands of my friends 'disappear', I'm damn sure I'd make the effort to get better.
>
> And, please, tell me how could you training "on the job"
> while ordinary citizens don't have any arms! Or maybe it's normal to
> keep arms under your pillow and a self-aiming granade launcher at the
> backyards in your country? And everyday after a good supper you're
> disassebling your old AK-47 or M-16? It's my time to "utter
> cack".
The normal citizens in Beslan seemed to have their own arms. So much so that the Spetznaz had to borrow ammunition from the local people. So why did those ordinary citizens have AK-47's?
>
> It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as
> something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah
> and
> Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that
> sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
>
> That's not actually the same...
Why not? Give me a single solitary reason why it isn't the same.
>
> SO WHAT CRIMES DID RUSSIAN COMMIT?
> Can you name me just one russian who have kiddnapped an ordinary
> chechen, made him a slave and then sent his ear to his relatives in
> order to get a few thousands dollars? And certainly children killings
> are not crimes against humanity, am I right?
No, because as I've repeatedly said (and despite your efforts to constantly claim otherwise) the Beslan atrocity was just that; an atrocity. So are the crimes committed by the Russian forces. You need reminding of them? Look at my initial post in this thread that caused you such anguish. Can I name a single russian who has committed an atrocity? How about Colonel Yuri Budanov, who murdered a Chechen girl by strangulation. Oddly, he's just been pardoned by Putin himself. I guess after Beslan, the Russian army needs as many murderers of Chechens as it can get, eh?
[EDIT]
Seems that the pardon has been withdrawn due to the outcry it caused, though his lawyers have said they will reapply for it. So then; I've given you your 1 Russian. Are you still going to claim that the whole army is good and pure?
>
> You just can't define what is black and what is white.
I've not tried to. You on the other hand are claiming that everything Russia does is justifiable, and anything the Chechens do is bad and evil.
>
> Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims
> that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that
> they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the
> media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of
> fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars
> is hard to track down.
>
> So that makes me understand why are you so blind.
Heh. Nice attempt to distract, but a failed one; fact is, I've given more detail about Chechnya, it's history, and the current situation than you've managed to display. Which rather leads me to believe one of two things;
1 - You don't actually know what you're talking about
2 - You're not actually a Russian; just a sad, Bell-lite troll.
Could possibly be both actually, but there y'go. In either case, I'm enjoying the chance to marshall my own thoughts about Chechnya and put them in some sort of order. So cheers for that!
> So who is making crimes against humanity? Those who defends a part of
> his country or those hwo kill children, capture "Nord-ost"
> theatre, blow houses and metro stations? If you don't know the right
> answer well than I can give you an advice: ask your mom, she would
> certanly tell you that children killer don't have any right to
> breathe.
If Chechnya is part of your country (and it is not), how can you defend it by bombing the hell out of it and murdering, torturing, and raping it's civilians? I'm afraid that you still haven't made a convincing case for that beyond "Chechnya is ours. Because it is. And it's ours".
Child killers certainly don't have any right to breathe. So how come Colonel Budanov still lives? Seems that Russia is happy for Chechen youth to be butchered and only gets upset when it's own are horrifically killed.
>
> Teens of the UK are butchers and rapers? I can't believe my eyes -
> what are
> trying to say is awful.
Mwahahahahaha! Funny how your language skill suddenly lets you down there. Again, nice attempt to provoke a reaction, but I'll repeat; I'm talking about the Russian teenagers in the Russian army who have killed and raped Chechens.
>
> No. I can't see that you're all ears. Why do you want me to to
> approve my words? Actually I'm not a journalist, not a military man.
> I'm just an ordinary civilian, trying to earn some more money for his
> wife. Just try to imagine that you are wrong, try to stand my way.
> And it's not me who refuse to believe. I have many strong arguments
> that you don't want to hear. And you can't understand just one thing
> - Chechnya is a part of Russia, we respect Chechens as any other
> nation we live with.
So where are these many strong arguments? I keep asking you to produce them and all you keep saying is "Russia wouldn't do that", "It's a war", and "You don't understand". Oh, and as your opening statement was along the lines of "I don't care what you say, I won't listen", then you'll pardon me for laughing at your feeble attempt to make out that I'm being closed minded. I'm more than willing to be persuaded, but you're not saying anything that would persuade me so far. Perhaps if you actually produced some concrete evidence rather than restating your own opinion and expecting me to accept it as fact, you might be more persuasive?
>
> 1. This war was planned - large "rebels" basement with
> professional soldiers.
Proof of that please. Perhaps post an internet link or an article to give some evidence of it.
> 2. Hired assassins from middle east and africa. What the hell they
> were doing there?
You mean the jihadi Islamic terrorists? I'm not sure; maybe they enjoyed fighting Russians who occupied Afghanistan so much that they welcomed another excuse to do it.
> 3. Stolen weapons.
Mm, I must admit; the number of Russian soldiers who sold weapons to the Chechen rebels in order to supplement their meagre pay is quite disgusting, isn't it?
> 4. Cruelty during Chechen autonomy. Just look how they judge
> themselves by cutting heads, fingers or ears.
Ah, so now you're accepting that Chechnya was autonomous? Funny; you were saying it was part of Russia before. Anyway, could you provide proof of this cruelty committed by Chechens against Chechens. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true what with Sharia law being rather...strict. But I'd like a little proof that you actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
> 5. Russian troops could burn out everything in Chechnya using not
> more then ten rocket-firing complexes. Think why they didn't do that
> and prefered to fight head-to-head not behind somebody's back like
> Chechen terrorists.
Umm...they damn near have burnt everything out. Your desire for them to fight head to head is admirably immature of you; what you're saying is that you want them to face superior forces and die. Alas, people are rarely keen to die so easily. And so they will commit acts of terror because it's the most effective way of fighting back. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say how unfair it is.
> 6. The last and the most important thing: what was the reason of that
> war if they had everything that they wanted to?
Well, as Russian forces invaded Checnya when they declared independence, I would say they didn't have everything they wanted. Why, what do you think the Chechens want?
>
> The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled
> against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact
> that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some
> evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all
> you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no
> proof
> of it.
>
> The victim of more than 300 innocent children and civilians is not
> enought for you, I guess.
~sigh~ No, it isn't. The horrible death of 300 innocents is not proof that Chechens didn't initially struggle against children and civilians (by the way, "initially" means "at first" or "in the beginning"). Are you going to keep invoking their death as an excuse for every act of savagery that Russian forces have and will continue to commit? I suppose it's working for Putin, but I would have hoped you'd attempt to give some actual evidence.
> I've never told that all the Chechens are bad. I just want you to
> stop telling that it's all Russian falut because it's absolutely
> unprooved.
Well, I've provided lots of evidence for what I'm saying. You've provided none for your belief. So I'll continue to say that the Russian invasion and atrocities in Chechnya, because I have evidence to back that up.
>
> Though I've spent almost all of my childhood at the USSR I have many
> good things to remember. Free education, free gyms and sport
> sections. Yes, they were not good enough as you had but it didn't
> stopped us to win competitions like Olympic games.
Jolly good; I'm glad you have happy childhood memories. However, that doesn't really change the fact that the Chechen people were once independent. As the IRA have shown in Ireland, as ETA have shown in Spain, and as the Kurdish people have shown in Iraq, people have rather strong opinions on their freedom and independence and are willing to fight for it. I'm not disputing the plus points of the USSR. What I am saying is that rewriting history doesn't remove a nation's desire to be free and independent.
>
> You just got used to think that my totalitarian goverment was an
> enemy to your capitalistic. Now it's time to get use to that we're
> all childs of our mother earth. Live and respect, love and work.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. So when will Russia withdraw from Chechnya and show them respect and love by granting them their independence thus allowing them to live and work in peace?
Light wrote:
> Oh I'm quite prepared to admit I don't know much about Russia.
> However, it's equally clear that what you know stems directly from
> state approved literature from your childhood lessons in a
> centralised communist state. I'm not saying my knowledge of your
> country is unvarnished truth but I am saying yours is tarnished
> propaganda in the case of Chechnya.
>
> Here's some commentary on the media coverage of the 1st chechen war
> for you to digest;
So do you know England by only "capitalist" lessons? =) he-he-he =) It's very strange that you're thinking of me as of a communist or post-communist representative. Centralized commjunist lessons? Well, I've studied for only 4 first years under Gorbachev's goverment, so "communist" alphabet and mathematics is the same with "capitalist". So I think you're understanding that what you have written is absolutely unprooved.
As I said Chechnya was powered by criminals - now you can find that the terrorist's leader who captured Beslan children was under investigation since 1988 after he killed two citizens under Orel city. And it's only one example.
No need to give me links to digest, I know it quite well.
> And so, they decided to rescue the people of Chechnya from this
> criminal warlord by bombing the capital city flat, killing hundreds
> of thousands of people, raping women with gay abandon, and reducing
> the remaining people to a state of terror. What, did you think they'd
> be grateful? As ways of winning Hearts and Minds go, that's even
> worse that Dubya's Iraqi land grab. And much like that land grab, the
> oil of Chechnya played a big part in the decision to invade.
Yes, if criminals have arms, bazooka's and even tanks. Our constitution says that we can have only two kinds of armed people - army and militia, excluding some private bodyguards and security services. Also it says that anyone who will try to capture our territory anywhere would be attacked as an enemy. As you remember I was talking about criminal army not about just a few bandits with basements generals and curnals, finely armed and trained. So bombing was necessary to clear town from intruders. Mostly civilians were saved but war is a war so you can do nothing with it's victims. I've heared nothing about "raping women with gay abandon" as of an ordinary fact for all soldiers. Many of soldiers have wifes or girlfriends, so only scum would rape. And I think there're many rapings in London everyday, though it looks very peacefully.
> Because your definition of Russian differs rather substantially from
> that of most of the Chechen people. You consider them Russian, they
> consider themselves Chechen. How can you kill your neighbours child?
> Well, those psychotic Chechen Black Widows seemed to manage it. And
> as to you analogy about bombing Liverpool (however desirable that may
> be); what do you think happened in Northern Ireland? There were
> military operations against citizens of the UK who considered
> themselves to be Irish and not British.
My definition is the same for everybody: don't kill, don't steal, don't betray and do forgive. Many of the "rebels" betrayed their neighbours and their country, they have stolen much money and continue to kill everybody without any look at the human's moral.
> Regardless of how much you may wish to protest that such things are
> not possible because "russians wouldn't do that", I'm
> afraid that Russians most certainly did so. I can offer up a ton of
> evidence to show this. Thus far, you can offer up only patriotic
> notions of honour that, much though I admire, are baseless in this
> instance.
------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm ------
"when Nazi forces reached the gates of the Chechen capital, Grozny, Chechen separatists staged a rebellion against Russian rule. In response, the next year Stalin deported more than 1 million Chechens, Ingush, and other North Caucasian peoples to Siberia and Central Asia on the pretext that they had collaborated with the Nazis."
------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm -------
I guess that all of those cowards must be happy that they he didn't kill all of them. All of this was done absolutely right or you wish to stand and to protect Nazi? Or British people prefer to live side by side with traitos taking off their hats every morning saying "how do you do?".
If you're thinking that I'm trying to sympathize to Stalin I'll say I hate him because my family was sent to Central Asia because my ancestors struggled with Emperiour Army against bolsheviks and though I'm not a rebel and I'm not killing children with the goal of separating.
> And the fact that the media have shown footage of the ruins of
> Grozny? Are we simply meant to assume that the cavalcade of Chechens
> wailing about the death and destruction are all lying? Are the
> journalists reporting the disappearences of people on a daily basis,
> are they all lying? Is it simply a conspiracy to stop Russia taking
> back territory that it annexed in the reign of Peter the Great?
Yes, as I've already said war is a war. It brings death and destruction. But it was not Russian troops who started it.
If you want to return to history, let's make it but a little bit earlier when Russia was kept under invasions from Crimea, Caucasus and all of the East. Our emperiour Peter was called the Great not because he killed many chechens but stopped all that black times for Russia.
> I don't know too much about Zakaev in all truth, but I do know that
> he represents a more moderate faction. I also know that Putin is
> using this horrific tragedy as a convenient excuse to try and
> demonise anyone in favour of Chechen independence.
Demonising? Then his speech wasn't well translated to english. All that he said is that terrorism became a cancer to all of the world and we must fight together against it. And if he was using this tragedy as a convenient excuse he would certainly send there just a few bombers that could make Chechnya a part of the history or just command to FSB to find anyone who has a chechen nation and kill them.
> So we can agree on something. Why then do you naively imagine that
> the bloodshed of the 1st war is now simply forgotten, and the 2nd war
> is being fought by chivalric soldiers who's honour would never allow
> them to butcher and maim when they were only too happy to do so in
> the 1st war?
So I tell you again and again: it was not russian troops who started that war.
> Utter cack. The only mining that I'm aware of was done by the Russian
> forces. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please show it to
> me. As to the training to be a good soldier, once one has learned how
> to point a gun in the right direction, then the rest of the training
> is basically "on the job"; when Russian forces move into
> the area and shoot at you, you either learn these things or you die.
Just go to shooting gallery and try to shoot out 50 points with 5 bullets. The weight of an old AK-47 is nearly 4-5 killogramms so try to hit the moving target that is 100-150 meters away from you. I can bet $100 that you'd miss if you're not a sniper.
And, please, tell me how could you training "on the job" while ordinary citizens don't have any arms! Or maybe it's normal to keep arms under your pillow and a self-aiming granade launcher at the backyards in your country? And everyday after a good supper you're disassebling your old AK-47 or M-16? It's my time to "utter cack".
> It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as
> something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah and
> Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that
> sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
That's not actually the same...
> I'm not denying for an instance that war is hell. Nor am I denying
> atrocities were committed on Russian troops by Chechens. What I'm
> saying is that Russians committed an equal amount of horrific crimes
> against humanity.
SO WHAT CRIMES DID RUSSIAN COMMIT?
Can you name me just one russian who have kiddnapped an ordinary chechen, made him a slave and then sent his ear to his relatives in order to get a few thousands dollars? And certainly children killings are not crimes against humanity, am I right?
You just can't define what is black and what is white.
> Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims
> that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that
> they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the
> media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of
> fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars
> is hard to track down.
So that makes me understand why are you so blind.
> Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that the rebels who did this were
> scum.
So who is making crimes against humanity? Those who defends a part of his country or those hwo kill children, capture "Nord-ost" theatre, blow houses and metro stations? If you don't know the right answer well than I can give you an advice: ask your mom, she would certanly tell you that children killer don't have any right to breathe.
> Most of the Chechen independence groups say exactly the same;
> it's your folly to assume that anyone differing from your view is
> therefore supporting the rebels unconditionally. Churchill knew what
> he was talking about; many of the Russian conscripts are teenagers,
> not men at all. Perhaps that explains why they butchered and raped so
> many Chechens.
Teens of the UK are butchers and rapers? I can't believe my eyes - what are
trying to say is awful.
No. I can't see that you're all ears. Why do you want me to to approve my words? Actually I'm not a journalist, not a military man. I'm just an ordinary civilian, trying to earn some more money for his wife. Just try to imagine that you are wrong, try to stand my way. And it's not me who refuse to believe. I have many strong arguments that you don't want to hear. And you can't understand just one thing - Chechnya is a part of Russia, we respect Chechens as any other nation we live with.
1. This war was planned - large "rebels" basement with professional soldiers.
2. Hired assassins from middle east and africa. What the hell they were doing there?
3. Stolen weapons.
4. Cruelty during Chechen autonomy. Just look how they judge themselves by cutting heads, fingers or ears.
5. Russian troops could burn out everything in Chechnya using not more then ten rocket-firing complexes. Think why they didn't do that and prefered to fight head-to-head not behind somebody's back like Chechen terrorists.
6. The last and the most important thing: what was the reason of that war if they had everything that they wanted to?
> The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled
> against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact
> that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some
> evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all
> you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no proof
> of it.
The victim of more than 300 innocent children and civilians is not enought for you, I guess.
> So why are you trying to convince us that the Russian forces are the
> good guys and the Chechens are all as bad as the lunatics who
> butchered those kids? The only person trying to simplify things here
> is you.
I've never told that all the Chechens are bad. I just want you to stop telling that it's all Russian falut because it's absolutely unprooved.
> And I'm afraid that simply saying something has been renamed and
> therefore no longer exists doesn't really work. If it did, every
> district of France would have a number and not a name. Despite the
> best efforts of your previous, totalitarian government, history
> cannot simply be erased. People remember.
Though I've spent almost all of my childhood at the USSR I have many good things to remember. Free education, free gyms and sport sections. Yes, they were not good enough as you had but it didn't stopped us to win competitions like Olympic games.
You just got used to think that my totalitarian goverment was an enemy to your capitalistic. Now it's time to get use to that we're all childs of our mother earth. Live and respect, love and work.
> Hey, your English is better than my Russian! I'd say your English is
> superb; no need to apologise.
Yes, especially when there's a dictionary under my hand? =)) It's not easy for me to find the right words during this discussion. Anyway thanks for paying me a compliment.
> Oh I'm quite prepared to admit I don't know much about Russia.
> However, it's equally clear that what you know stems directly from
> state approved literature from your childhood lessons in a
> centralised communist state. I'm not saying my knowledge of your
> country is unvarnished truth but I am saying yours is tarnished
> propaganda in the case of Chechnya.
>
> Here's some commentary on the media coverage of the 1st chechen war
> for you to digest;
So do you know England by only "capitalist" lessons? =) he-he-he =) It's very strange that you're thinking of me as of a communist or post-communist representative. Centralized commjunist lessons? Well, I've studied for only 4 first years under Gorbachev's goverment, so "communist" alphabet and mathematics is the same with "capitalist". So I think you're understanding that what you have written is absolutely unprooved.
As I said Chechnya was powered by criminals - now you can find that the terrorist's leader who captured Beslan children was under investigation since 1988 after he killed two citizens under Orel city. And it's only one example.
No need to give me links to digest, I know it quite well.
> And so, they decided to rescue the people of Chechnya from this
> criminal warlord by bombing the capital city flat, killing hundreds
> of thousands of people, raping women with gay abandon, and reducing
> the remaining people to a state of terror. What, did you think they'd
> be grateful? As ways of winning Hearts and Minds go, that's even
> worse that Dubya's Iraqi land grab. And much like that land grab, the
> oil of Chechnya played a big part in the decision to invade.
Yes, if criminals have arms, bazooka's and even tanks. Our constitution says that we can have only two kinds of armed people - army and militia, excluding some private bodyguards and security services. Also it says that anyone who will try to capture our territory anywhere would be attacked as an enemy. As you remember I was talking about criminal army not about just a few bandits with basements generals and curnals, finely armed and trained. So bombing was necessary to clear town from intruders. Mostly civilians were saved but war is a war so you can do nothing with it's victims. I've heared nothing about "raping women with gay abandon" as of an ordinary fact for all soldiers. Many of soldiers have wifes or girlfriends, so only scum would rape. And I think there're many rapings in London everyday, though it looks very peacefully.
> Because your definition of Russian differs rather substantially from
> that of most of the Chechen people. You consider them Russian, they
> consider themselves Chechen. How can you kill your neighbours child?
> Well, those psychotic Chechen Black Widows seemed to manage it. And
> as to you analogy about bombing Liverpool (however desirable that may
> be); what do you think happened in Northern Ireland? There were
> military operations against citizens of the UK who considered
> themselves to be Irish and not British.
My definition is the same for everybody: don't kill, don't steal, don't betray and do forgive. Many of the "rebels" betrayed their neighbours and their country, they have stolen much money and continue to kill everybody without any look at the human's moral.
> Regardless of how much you may wish to protest that such things are
> not possible because "russians wouldn't do that", I'm
> afraid that Russians most certainly did so. I can offer up a ton of
> evidence to show this. Thus far, you can offer up only patriotic
> notions of honour that, much though I admire, are baseless in this
> instance.
------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm ------
"when Nazi forces reached the gates of the Chechen capital, Grozny, Chechen separatists staged a rebellion against Russian rule. In response, the next year Stalin deported more than 1 million Chechens, Ingush, and other North Caucasian peoples to Siberia and Central Asia on the pretext that they had collaborated with the Nazis."
------ http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm -------
I guess that all of those cowards must be happy that they he didn't kill all of them. All of this was done absolutely right or you wish to stand and to protect Nazi? Or British people prefer to live side by side with traitos taking off their hats every morning saying "how do you do?".
If you're thinking that I'm trying to sympathize to Stalin I'll say I hate him because my family was sent to Central Asia because my ancestors struggled with Emperiour Army against bolsheviks and though I'm not a rebel and I'm not killing children with the goal of separating.
> And the fact that the media have shown footage of the ruins of
> Grozny? Are we simply meant to assume that the cavalcade of Chechens
> wailing about the death and destruction are all lying? Are the
> journalists reporting the disappearences of people on a daily basis,
> are they all lying? Is it simply a conspiracy to stop Russia taking
> back territory that it annexed in the reign of Peter the Great?
Yes, as I've already said war is a war. It brings death and destruction. But it was not Russian troops who started it.
If you want to return to history, let's make it but a little bit earlier when Russia was kept under invasions from Crimea, Caucasus and all of the East. Our emperiour Peter was called the Great not because he killed many chechens but stopped all that black times for Russia.
> I don't know too much about Zakaev in all truth, but I do know that
> he represents a more moderate faction. I also know that Putin is
> using this horrific tragedy as a convenient excuse to try and
> demonise anyone in favour of Chechen independence.
Demonising? Then his speech wasn't well translated to english. All that he said is that terrorism became a cancer to all of the world and we must fight together against it. And if he was using this tragedy as a convenient excuse he would certainly send there just a few bombers that could make Chechnya a part of the history or just command to FSB to find anyone who has a chechen nation and kill them.
> So we can agree on something. Why then do you naively imagine that
> the bloodshed of the 1st war is now simply forgotten, and the 2nd war
> is being fought by chivalric soldiers who's honour would never allow
> them to butcher and maim when they were only too happy to do so in
> the 1st war?
So I tell you again and again: it was not russian troops who started that war.
> Utter cack. The only mining that I'm aware of was done by the Russian
> forces. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please show it to
> me. As to the training to be a good soldier, once one has learned how
> to point a gun in the right direction, then the rest of the training
> is basically "on the job"; when Russian forces move into
> the area and shoot at you, you either learn these things or you die.
Just go to shooting gallery and try to shoot out 50 points with 5 bullets. The weight of an old AK-47 is nearly 4-5 killogramms so try to hit the moving target that is 100-150 meters away from you. I can bet $100 that you'd miss if you're not a sniper.
And, please, tell me how could you training "on the job" while ordinary citizens don't have any arms! Or maybe it's normal to keep arms under your pillow and a self-aiming granade launcher at the backyards in your country? And everyday after a good supper you're disassebling your old AK-47 or M-16? It's my time to "utter cack".
> It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as
> something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah and
> Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that
> sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
That's not actually the same...
> I'm not denying for an instance that war is hell. Nor am I denying
> atrocities were committed on Russian troops by Chechens. What I'm
> saying is that Russians committed an equal amount of horrific crimes
> against humanity.
SO WHAT CRIMES DID RUSSIAN COMMIT?
Can you name me just one russian who have kiddnapped an ordinary chechen, made him a slave and then sent his ear to his relatives in order to get a few thousands dollars? And certainly children killings are not crimes against humanity, am I right?
You just can't define what is black and what is white.
> Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims
> that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that
> they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the
> media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of
> fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars
> is hard to track down.
So that makes me understand why are you so blind.
> Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that the rebels who did this were
> scum.
So who is making crimes against humanity? Those who defends a part of his country or those hwo kill children, capture "Nord-ost" theatre, blow houses and metro stations? If you don't know the right answer well than I can give you an advice: ask your mom, she would certanly tell you that children killer don't have any right to breathe.
> Most of the Chechen independence groups say exactly the same;
> it's your folly to assume that anyone differing from your view is
> therefore supporting the rebels unconditionally. Churchill knew what
> he was talking about; many of the Russian conscripts are teenagers,
> not men at all. Perhaps that explains why they butchered and raped so
> many Chechens.
Teens of the UK are butchers and rapers? I can't believe my eyes - what are
trying to say is awful.
No. I can't see that you're all ears. Why do you want me to to approve my words? Actually I'm not a journalist, not a military man. I'm just an ordinary civilian, trying to earn some more money for his wife. Just try to imagine that you are wrong, try to stand my way. And it's not me who refuse to believe. I have many strong arguments that you don't want to hear. And you can't understand just one thing - Chechnya is a part of Russia, we respect Chechens as any other nation we live with.
1. This war was planned - large "rebels" basement with professional soldiers.
2. Hired assassins from middle east and africa. What the hell they were doing there?
3. Stolen weapons.
4. Cruelty during Chechen autonomy. Just look how they judge themselves by cutting heads, fingers or ears.
5. Russian troops could burn out everything in Chechnya using not more then ten rocket-firing complexes. Think why they didn't do that and prefered to fight head-to-head not behind somebody's back like Chechen terrorists.
6. The last and the most important thing: what was the reason of that war if they had everything that they wanted to?
> The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled
> against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact
> that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some
> evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all
> you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no proof
> of it.
The victim of more than 300 innocent children and civilians is not enought for you, I guess.
> So why are you trying to convince us that the Russian forces are the
> good guys and the Chechens are all as bad as the lunatics who
> butchered those kids? The only person trying to simplify things here
> is you.
I've never told that all the Chechens are bad. I just want you to stop telling that it's all Russian falut because it's absolutely unprooved.
> And I'm afraid that simply saying something has been renamed and
> therefore no longer exists doesn't really work. If it did, every
> district of France would have a number and not a name. Despite the
> best efforts of your previous, totalitarian government, history
> cannot simply be erased. People remember.
Though I've spent almost all of my childhood at the USSR I have many good things to remember. Free education, free gyms and sport sections. Yes, they were not good enough as you had but it didn't stopped us to win competitions like Olympic games.
You just got used to think that my totalitarian goverment was an enemy to your capitalistic. Now it's time to get use to that we're all childs of our mother earth. Live and respect, love and work.
> Hey, your English is better than my Russian! I'd say your English is
> superb; no need to apologise.
Yes, especially when there's a dictionary under my hand? =)) It's not easy for me to find the right words during this discussion. Anyway thanks for paying me a compliment.
Incidentally, Foszy, I owe you an apology. I took rather a condescending and arrogant tone when responding to your post, and I'm sorry about that.
Revolver wrote:
> You try to judge while you know nothing. You're saying that you know a
> little bit about Russia and it's really true.
Oh I'm quite prepared to admit I don't know much about Russia. However, it's equally clear that what you know stems directly from state approved literature from your childhood lessons in a centralised communist state. I'm not saying my knowledge of your country is unvarnished truth but I am saying yours is tarnished propaganda in the case of Chechnya.
Here's some commentary on the media coverage of the 1st chechen war for you to digest;
[URL]http://www.internews.ru/article/2000/mediacoverage.html[/URL]
>
> Let's start from the beginnig...
>
> Many people of different nations lived in peace together at the land
> of Chechnya. And then happened that USSR have been devided into
> parts... All of 15 republic decided to be independent countries. It
> was a black time for all of our nations but a good time for crime. So
> one man who calls himself chechen organized crimes, got arms,
> kidnapped people in order to get lots power. Every man who lived
> there could go to into his native town and could be lost forever.
> That was the reason why troops came here.
And so, they decided to rescue the people of Chechnya from this criminal warlord by bombing the capital city flat, killing hundreds of thousands of people, raping women with gay abandon, and reducing the remaining people to a state of terror. What, did you think they'd be grateful? As ways of winning Hearts and Minds go, that's even worse that Dubya's Iraqi land grab. And much like that land grab, the oil of Chechnya played a big part in the decision to invade.
>
> And how can you say that chechen civilians were killed if a huge part
> of them was russian? How can I put bomb into a toy in my own country?
> How can I kill my neighbour's child? That's quite stupid. Just
> imagine that one day your Queen wakes up this morning on the wrong
> side of the bed and desides to bomb Liverpool or any other town.
> That's ridiculous.
Because your definition of Russian differs rather substantially from that of most of the Chechen people. You consider them Russian, they consider themselves Chechen. How can you kill your neighbours child? Well, those psychotic Chechen Black Widows seemed to manage it. And as to you analogy about bombing Liverpool (however desirable that may be); what do you think happened in Northern Ireland? There were military operations against citizens of the UK who considered themselves to be Irish and not British.
Regardless of how much you may wish to protest that such things are not possible because "russians wouldn't do that", I'm afraid that Russians most certainly did so. I can offer up a ton of evidence to show this. Thus far, you can offer up only patriotic notions of honour that, much though I admire, are baseless in this instance.
Here is a little more about the origins of the 1st Chechen war;
[URL]http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm[/URL]
>
> And if you were bandits trying to capture Russian territory what
> would you do? Right! You'd say to all the that all that troops are
> killing peaceful chechens because they were drunk, call yourself a
> "political refuge" and try to get away from justice to
> another country. That's the way you keep Zakaev, for example, though
> it's absolutely transparent that he is a killer.
And the fact that the media have shown footage of the ruins of Grozny? Are we simply meant to assume that the cavalcade of Chechens wailing about the death and destruction are all lying? Are the journalists reporting the disappearences of people on a daily basis, are they all lying? Is it simply a conspiracy to stop Russia taking back territory that it annexed in the reign of Peter the Great?
I don't know too much about Zakaev in all truth, but I do know that he represents a more moderate faction. I also know that Putin is using this horrific tragedy as a convenient excuse to try and demonise anyone in favour of Chechen independence.
>
> I can agree with you that russian politics are not perfect, many of
> them are dirty-handed. I can agree that while Eltzin was our
> president many terrible things happened. That war started while he
> was in the president's chair. Thousands of our soldiers and civilians
> died during that war.
So we can agree on something. Why then do you naively imagine that the bloodshed of the 1st war is now simply forgotten, and the 2nd war is being fought by chivalric soldiers who's honour would never allow them to butcher and maim when they were only too happy to do so in the 1st war?
>
> As I have already told you that civilians don't fire weapons... Think
> about it. It takes much time to study for a good soldier or
> "rebel". You have to learn how to mask, to fire, to throw
> grenades and knifes. Also it takes much time to mine. All of these
> facts prove that it was thoroughly prepared action in order to set
> panic, to sow the seeds of the war between nations.
Utter cack. The only mining that I'm aware of was done by the Russian forces. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please show it to me. As to the training to be a good soldier, once one has learned how to point a gun in the right direction, then the rest of the training is basically "on the job"; when Russian forces move into the area and shoot at you, you either learn these things or you die.
It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah and Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
>
> The only thing I'm asking of is think of what I'm trying to say to
> you. I can see what happens here and you can't see this. Media is
> showing you only those facts that they want you to see. They don't
> show you people who were captured by chechen bandits a long time
> before the war. They don't show you cutten fingers or ears they sent
> to the relatives. They don't show you weapons they had bought on
> ransom's money. They don't show you 19 years old soldier who became
> an alcoholic after the horror he saw in captivity.
I'm not denying for an instance that war is hell. Nor am I denying atrocities were committed on Russian troops by Chechens. What I'm saying is that Russians committed an equal amount of horrific crimes against humanity.
Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars is hard to track down.
>
> >"One man’s terrorist is another man’s
> freedom fighter”, which I would say is fairly appropriate
> here.
> That's a point where we look at those thing differently. Freedom
> fighters struggle when there's no freedom. There were many schools,
> universities where everybody could get an absolutely free education,
> many plants and just simply beautiful places. And freedom fighters
> struggle against evil but not for evil and not with peaceful
> civilians and especially children.
> A man who kills children is not a man at all. And I must understand
> that.
> Somebody said that there's no such a reason idea that costs a child's
> life. If I'm not mistaken it was Churchill.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that the rebels who did this were scum. Most of the Chechen independence groups say exactly the same; it's your folly to assume that anyone differing from your view is therefore supporting the rebels unconditionally. Churchill knew what he was talking about; many of the Russian conscripts are teenagers, not men at all. Perhaps that explains why they butchered and raped so many Chechens.
The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no proof of it.
>
> That's not a kind of a situation when emperior strikes back after the
> rebels assault. Putin isn't a guy with black bucket on his head. It's
> life where everything is much more simplier than in a movie.
So why are you trying to convince us that the Russian forces are the good guys and the Chechens are all as bad as the lunatics who butchered those kids? The only person trying to simplify things here is you.
>
> By the way, Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti isn't any longer
> exist, it's just renamed to Feberal'nаya Slujba
> Bezopastnosti.
And I'm afraid that simply saying something has been renamed and therefore no longer exists doesn't really work. If it did, every district of France would have a number and not a name. Despite the best efforts of your previous, totalitarian government, history cannot simply be erased. People remember.
>
> P.S. Sorry for my english, it's all I have after school. =)
Hey, your English is better than my Russian! I'd say your English is superb; no need to apologise.
> You try to judge while you know nothing. You're saying that you know a
> little bit about Russia and it's really true.
Oh I'm quite prepared to admit I don't know much about Russia. However, it's equally clear that what you know stems directly from state approved literature from your childhood lessons in a centralised communist state. I'm not saying my knowledge of your country is unvarnished truth but I am saying yours is tarnished propaganda in the case of Chechnya.
Here's some commentary on the media coverage of the 1st chechen war for you to digest;
[URL]http://www.internews.ru/article/2000/mediacoverage.html[/URL]
>
> Let's start from the beginnig...
>
> Many people of different nations lived in peace together at the land
> of Chechnya. And then happened that USSR have been devided into
> parts... All of 15 republic decided to be independent countries. It
> was a black time for all of our nations but a good time for crime. So
> one man who calls himself chechen organized crimes, got arms,
> kidnapped people in order to get lots power. Every man who lived
> there could go to into his native town and could be lost forever.
> That was the reason why troops came here.
And so, they decided to rescue the people of Chechnya from this criminal warlord by bombing the capital city flat, killing hundreds of thousands of people, raping women with gay abandon, and reducing the remaining people to a state of terror. What, did you think they'd be grateful? As ways of winning Hearts and Minds go, that's even worse that Dubya's Iraqi land grab. And much like that land grab, the oil of Chechnya played a big part in the decision to invade.
>
> And how can you say that chechen civilians were killed if a huge part
> of them was russian? How can I put bomb into a toy in my own country?
> How can I kill my neighbour's child? That's quite stupid. Just
> imagine that one day your Queen wakes up this morning on the wrong
> side of the bed and desides to bomb Liverpool or any other town.
> That's ridiculous.
Because your definition of Russian differs rather substantially from that of most of the Chechen people. You consider them Russian, they consider themselves Chechen. How can you kill your neighbours child? Well, those psychotic Chechen Black Widows seemed to manage it. And as to you analogy about bombing Liverpool (however desirable that may be); what do you think happened in Northern Ireland? There were military operations against citizens of the UK who considered themselves to be Irish and not British.
Regardless of how much you may wish to protest that such things are not possible because "russians wouldn't do that", I'm afraid that Russians most certainly did so. I can offer up a ton of evidence to show this. Thus far, you can offer up only patriotic notions of honour that, much though I admire, are baseless in this instance.
Here is a little more about the origins of the 1st Chechen war;
[URL]http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/First-Chechen-War.htm[/URL]
>
> And if you were bandits trying to capture Russian territory what
> would you do? Right! You'd say to all the that all that troops are
> killing peaceful chechens because they were drunk, call yourself a
> "political refuge" and try to get away from justice to
> another country. That's the way you keep Zakaev, for example, though
> it's absolutely transparent that he is a killer.
And the fact that the media have shown footage of the ruins of Grozny? Are we simply meant to assume that the cavalcade of Chechens wailing about the death and destruction are all lying? Are the journalists reporting the disappearences of people on a daily basis, are they all lying? Is it simply a conspiracy to stop Russia taking back territory that it annexed in the reign of Peter the Great?
I don't know too much about Zakaev in all truth, but I do know that he represents a more moderate faction. I also know that Putin is using this horrific tragedy as a convenient excuse to try and demonise anyone in favour of Chechen independence.
>
> I can agree with you that russian politics are not perfect, many of
> them are dirty-handed. I can agree that while Eltzin was our
> president many terrible things happened. That war started while he
> was in the president's chair. Thousands of our soldiers and civilians
> died during that war.
So we can agree on something. Why then do you naively imagine that the bloodshed of the 1st war is now simply forgotten, and the 2nd war is being fought by chivalric soldiers who's honour would never allow them to butcher and maim when they were only too happy to do so in the 1st war?
>
> As I have already told you that civilians don't fire weapons... Think
> about it. It takes much time to study for a good soldier or
> "rebel". You have to learn how to mask, to fire, to throw
> grenades and knifes. Also it takes much time to mine. All of these
> facts prove that it was thoroughly prepared action in order to set
> panic, to sow the seeds of the war between nations.
Utter cack. The only mining that I'm aware of was done by the Russian forces. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please show it to me. As to the training to be a good soldier, once one has learned how to point a gun in the right direction, then the rest of the training is basically "on the job"; when Russian forces move into the area and shoot at you, you either learn these things or you die.
It seems you're trying to redefine all the citizens killed as something else. Which is exactly the same approach that Hezbollah and Hamas use to justify the slaughter of Israeli citizens. I find that sophistry repellent, from both them and you.
>
> The only thing I'm asking of is think of what I'm trying to say to
> you. I can see what happens here and you can't see this. Media is
> showing you only those facts that they want you to see. They don't
> show you people who were captured by chechen bandits a long time
> before the war. They don't show you cutten fingers or ears they sent
> to the relatives. They don't show you weapons they had bought on
> ransom's money. They don't show you 19 years old soldier who became
> an alcoholic after the horror he saw in captivity.
I'm not denying for an instance that war is hell. Nor am I denying atrocities were committed on Russian troops by Chechens. What I'm saying is that Russians committed an equal amount of horrific crimes against humanity.
Like I say, so far the only thing you have to support your claims that Russians behaved in an exemplary manner is your own desire that they should have done so, followed by the standard "Ah, but the media only show you what they want you to see". As a matter of fact, they've barely shown us anything; coverage on the Chechen wars is hard to track down.
>
> >"One man’s terrorist is another man’s
> freedom fighter”, which I would say is fairly appropriate
> here.
> That's a point where we look at those thing differently. Freedom
> fighters struggle when there's no freedom. There were many schools,
> universities where everybody could get an absolutely free education,
> many plants and just simply beautiful places. And freedom fighters
> struggle against evil but not for evil and not with peaceful
> civilians and especially children.
> A man who kills children is not a man at all. And I must understand
> that.
> Somebody said that there's no such a reason idea that costs a child's
> life. If I'm not mistaken it was Churchill.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that the rebels who did this were scum. Most of the Chechen independence groups say exactly the same; it's your folly to assume that anyone differing from your view is therefore supporting the rebels unconditionally. Churchill knew what he was talking about; many of the Russian conscripts are teenagers, not men at all. Perhaps that explains why they butchered and raped so many Chechens.
The Freedom Fighters/Terrorists of Chechnya initially struggled against Russian army forces, not children and civilians. The fact that you refuse to believe that is your problem; give me some evidence that what you say is true and I'm all ears. So far, all you've done is stated how you wish things to be and provided no proof of it.
>
> That's not a kind of a situation when emperior strikes back after the
> rebels assault. Putin isn't a guy with black bucket on his head. It's
> life where everything is much more simplier than in a movie.
So why are you trying to convince us that the Russian forces are the good guys and the Chechens are all as bad as the lunatics who butchered those kids? The only person trying to simplify things here is you.
>
> By the way, Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti isn't any longer
> exist, it's just renamed to Feberal'nаya Slujba
> Bezopastnosti.
And I'm afraid that simply saying something has been renamed and therefore no longer exists doesn't really work. If it did, every district of France would have a number and not a name. Despite the best efforts of your previous, totalitarian government, history cannot simply be erased. People remember.
>
> P.S. Sorry for my english, it's all I have after school. =)
Hey, your English is better than my Russian! I'd say your English is superb; no need to apologise.
I feel sorry for the parents who had to leave their older children behind there was a lady on the TV tonight who was let out because of her five month old baby but she had to leave her seven year old behind unfortunately her seven year old was one of those killed she now blames herself and said she should have handed her baby daughter to somebody else and stayed with him she thought maybe she could have gotten him out. Having three children myself and another on the way I don't know how I'd feel but those Chechans, Arabs or whoever they were are cowards using women and children as pawns in a political game. It's sickening and scary just makes you wonder what they'll do next.
Skarra wrote:
> Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked
> attacks on the US and its interests over seas.
Please define unprovoked, because my definition means that someone woke up one day and decided to launch attacks on US interests.
> Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked
> attacks on the US and its interests over seas.
Please define unprovoked, because my definition means that someone woke up one day and decided to launch attacks on US interests.
Light wrote:
> Such as where? There was the attack on the WTC which was (i think)
> less than 10 years ago.
11 years ago tommorow I believe.
> Such as where? There was the attack on the WTC which was (i think)
> less than 10 years ago.
11 years ago tommorow I believe.
Mr. Revolver person, while you say all we are seeing is what the media want us to see surely that is true of you as well...? Unless you live in or very close to the region I assume you are basing your facts on the media...? You are saying the West is trying to portray Russia as an evil nation etc. well, the vast majority of people are sentimental to the fact that the people killed were innocent. There are also a number of people who are trying to get to the root of the problem, ie. what caused people to take these extreme actions. Some have come to the conclusion that they carried out these actions as a reaction to Russian atrocities carried out. If you want to hide and keep insisting that no Russian would ever commit such atrocities, fine, but those who carried out the killings at the school are people too, labelling them 'evil' or 'monsters' won't change that and won't help stop these acts of violence.
People of any nationality, any background, any culture, are capable of these acts. Just because someone is Russian (or British, or American, or whatever) doesn't mean they are incapable of killing innocents.
People of any nationality, any background, any culture, are capable of these acts. Just because someone is Russian (or British, or American, or whatever) doesn't mean they are incapable of killing innocents.
You try to judge while you know nothing. You're saying that you know a little bit about Russia and it's really true.
Let's start from the beginnig...
Many people of different nations lived in peace together at the land of Chechnya. And then happened that USSR have been devided into parts... All of 15 republic decided to be independent countries. It was a black time for all of our nations but a good time for crime. So one man who calls himself chechen organized crimes, got arms, kidnapped people in order to get lots power. Every man who lived there could go to into his native town and could be lost forever. That was the reason why troops came here.
And how can you say that chechen civilians were killed if a huge part of them was russian? How can I put bomb into a toy in my own country? How can I kill my neighbour's child? That's quite stupid. Just imagine that one day your Queen wakes up this morning on the wrong side of the bed and desides to bomb Liverpool or any other town. That's ridiculous.
And if you were bandits trying to capture Russian territory what would you do? Right! You'd say to all the that all that troops are killing peaceful chechens because they were drunk, call yourself a "political refuge" and try to get away from justice to another country. That's the way you keep Zakaev, for example, though it's absolutely transparent that he is a killer.
I can agree with you that russian politics are not perfect, many of them are dirty-handed. I can agree that while Eltzin was our president many terrible things happened. That war started while he was in the president's chair. Thousands of our soldiers and civilians died during that war.
As I have already told you that civilians don't fire weapons... Think about it. It takes much time to study for a good soldier or "rebel". You have to learn how to mask, to fire, to throw grenades and knifes. Also it takes much time to mine. All of these facts prove that it was thoroughly prepared action in order to set panic, to sow the seeds of the war between nations.
The only thing I'm asking of is think of what I'm trying to say to you. I can see what happens here and you can't see this. Media is showing you only those facts that they want you to see. They don't show you people who were captured by chechen bandits a long time before the war. They don't show you cutten fingers or ears they sent to the relatives. They don't show you weapons they had bought on ransom's money. They don't show you 19 years old soldier who became an alcoholic after the horror he saw in captivity.
>"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, which I would say > is fairly appropriate here.
That's a point where we look at those thing differently. Freedom fighters struggle when there's no freedom. There were many schools, universities where everybody could get an absolutely free education, many plants and just simply beautiful places. And freedom fighters struggle against evil but not for evil and not with peaceful civilians and especially children.
A man who kills children is not a man at all. And I must understand that.
Somebody said that there's no such a reason idea that costs a child's life. If I'm not mistaken it was Churchill.
That's not a kind of a situation when emperior strikes back after the rebels assault. Putin isn't a guy with black bucket on his head. It's life where everything is much more simplier than in a movie.
By the way, Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti isn't any longer exist, it's just renamed to Feberal'nаya Slujba Bezopastnosti.
P.S. Sorry for my english, it's all I have after school. =)
Let's start from the beginnig...
Many people of different nations lived in peace together at the land of Chechnya. And then happened that USSR have been devided into parts... All of 15 republic decided to be independent countries. It was a black time for all of our nations but a good time for crime. So one man who calls himself chechen organized crimes, got arms, kidnapped people in order to get lots power. Every man who lived there could go to into his native town and could be lost forever. That was the reason why troops came here.
And how can you say that chechen civilians were killed if a huge part of them was russian? How can I put bomb into a toy in my own country? How can I kill my neighbour's child? That's quite stupid. Just imagine that one day your Queen wakes up this morning on the wrong side of the bed and desides to bomb Liverpool or any other town. That's ridiculous.
And if you were bandits trying to capture Russian territory what would you do? Right! You'd say to all the that all that troops are killing peaceful chechens because they were drunk, call yourself a "political refuge" and try to get away from justice to another country. That's the way you keep Zakaev, for example, though it's absolutely transparent that he is a killer.
I can agree with you that russian politics are not perfect, many of them are dirty-handed. I can agree that while Eltzin was our president many terrible things happened. That war started while he was in the president's chair. Thousands of our soldiers and civilians died during that war.
As I have already told you that civilians don't fire weapons... Think about it. It takes much time to study for a good soldier or "rebel". You have to learn how to mask, to fire, to throw grenades and knifes. Also it takes much time to mine. All of these facts prove that it was thoroughly prepared action in order to set panic, to sow the seeds of the war between nations.
The only thing I'm asking of is think of what I'm trying to say to you. I can see what happens here and you can't see this. Media is showing you only those facts that they want you to see. They don't show you people who were captured by chechen bandits a long time before the war. They don't show you cutten fingers or ears they sent to the relatives. They don't show you weapons they had bought on ransom's money. They don't show you 19 years old soldier who became an alcoholic after the horror he saw in captivity.
>"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, which I would say > is fairly appropriate here.
That's a point where we look at those thing differently. Freedom fighters struggle when there's no freedom. There were many schools, universities where everybody could get an absolutely free education, many plants and just simply beautiful places. And freedom fighters struggle against evil but not for evil and not with peaceful civilians and especially children.
A man who kills children is not a man at all. And I must understand that.
Somebody said that there's no such a reason idea that costs a child's life. If I'm not mistaken it was Churchill.
That's not a kind of a situation when emperior strikes back after the rebels assault. Putin isn't a guy with black bucket on his head. It's life where everything is much more simplier than in a movie.
By the way, Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti isn't any longer exist, it's just renamed to Feberal'nаya Slujba Bezopastnosti.
P.S. Sorry for my english, it's all I have after school. =)
Skarra wrote:
> Right, start again. Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked
> attacks on the US and its interests over seas. The fact that the
> building is in a combat zone means its bound to get attacked, but
> perhaps not because its a symbol on that nation when not in a combat
> zone, but just a military command post when in a combat zone.
Such as where? There was the attack on the WTC which was (i think) less than 10 years ago. And there was a boat attack on a US Naval vessel. In Neutral waters. What are these other attacks? Can you think of any at all? Are we including Oklahoma, Waco, and Ruby Ridge in the count? The 3 incidents that involved US citizens and not one single Moslem? If we are, why are Islamic nations being shat on for the actions of US Extremists?
I'll repeat; the statement that there were 5 attacks on US soil during Clinton's time as President is a bald faced, out-and-out lie. You know want to broaden it out to attacks on US interests? Okay; shall we discuss the murder of US citizens in Saudi since the WOT began?
All I'm asking skarra is for you to give me some indication that there is a kernel of truth behind the statement. Since I've asked, you've broadened out the definition of US Soil until it is quite differerent from the original implication. And yet, one STILL cannot see where these 5 attacks are supposed to have occured. If they happened then please, give me some examples; just cos I've not heard of them I'm quite prepared to accept they actually happened. However you're not giving me much help here.
>
>
> I would HATE to live like you. If somebody said something that
> may be incorrect, inaccurate or wrong through hindsight, you leap to
> your feet screaming, ITS A LIE, HES A LOW LIFE BLAIRITE SCUM OF A
> LIAR!!! Thats just a sad way to live, assuming that everybody is out
> to mislead you.
Well, your painful attempt at misdirection aside, you made a statement. That statement was untrue. You've done nothing whatsoever to back up that statement, preferring instead to deploy as many different semantics as possible to distract from the simple fact; the statement was untrue.
Wrong through hindsight? You still haven't even accepted the factual innacuracy of the statement despite it's manifest obviousness, and you've tried to justify it as having some sort of truth without giving a single fact. That coupled with your general evasiveness leads me to believe that you know it's a lie, but it suits you to repeat it for whatever reason.
Oh, and I never mentioned anything about you or your blairite tendencies; if you have a guilty conscience, that's your problem not mine.
> I made no such claim! I acnowledged a few posts back that some in the
> US may not agree with the WOT, but said that many do. I don't recall
> ever saying 100% of the US populas is behind it, i said that there
> must be a lot of support for it, otherwise Bush would be having a
> tougher time of it, in election and other areas.
Okay, fair enough. However, your initial statement said that it was your opinion on "the american perspective". You went on to admit (grudgingly) that not all Americans agree with the WOT, then quoted a few statistics about the US election in order to further claim that most Americans do support the WOT. Despite my showing how innacurate and misleading your use of those statistic was, and your accepting (in a fairly petulant manner) that you weren't correct, here you are agains saying that they must be true because "Otherwise Bush would be having a tougher time of it". Despite the fact I've already given a few stats showing he IS having a tougher time of it.
So why are you repeating discredited statements to shore up your belief in a lie?
> Please do, i didn't see, and have yet to see, wide spread mass
> demonstrations specifically against the WOT. I believe i have only
> seen a few protesters with signs ever relating to the WOT. If i'm
> wrong, and capital hill has been flooded with people specifically
> opposed to the WOT, do tell.
Ah yes; is this in the same way as you demand signed documents from Blair and Dubya expressly stating that even though they know there are no WOMD in Iraq, they're going to invade and what's more they're going to do it for the oil? Always an interesting approach; tell me, if I were to point to the enormous demonstrations against Dubya outside the Republican convention in NYC, would you simply complain that it wasn't specifically about the WOT, despite the fact that it (along with soaring unemployment) are the only noteworthy things abot Dubya's regime?
Okay; here is a list of US antiwar sites;
[URL]http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html#anchor1027606[/URL]
And here is a list of upcoming demonstrations in the US and the world;
[URL]http://www.warresisters.org/demos.htm[/URL]
Will that do you for starters, or would you like me to hunt out some signed affadavits from US citizens who demonstrated in NYC?
> It was a sporting event in the US, organised by private individuals.
And here you go again, being stultifying evasive which simply leads me to further believe that you know the organisers had a bias and you simply don't want to declare it because you know it'll rather blow your case out of the water. Where in the US? Who were these private individuals? Why was WOT discussed at a sporting event? Why did they organise the event?
>
> Not much bias at all. As i said, pretty much the only thing these
> people had in common, was their nationality. Different jobs,
> political stand points etc... and all agreed that the WOT is the way
> to go.
Well, as you're point blank refusing to give out much info or background about this meeting, I'll come right out and say it; I don't believe you. This thread reads like you're avoiding answering most of the points whilst trying to distract from that fact. And when caught out, you're resorting to mild sarcasm in the hope I'll give up. This is like arguing with a slightly more accomplished Belldandy.
Not much bias? Sure; that's why you won't say a damn thing about who and why it was organised. Not much in common? Well, it's hard for anyone else to say when you won't tell us a damn thing about it, isn't it? Thus far we only have your word, and to be honest I find that your increasing evasiveness makes it far more difficult to give any credence to what you say. Especially when we already know that your own personal bias is in favour of the war.
> What are these lies? Are they making it up that there have been no
> more US airliners falling out of the sky onto US soil? Have they lied
> that no more buildings have been brought down by terrorists? Have
> they lied and there have been more attacks within the US shore-line?
The lie that there were 5 attacks on US soil prior to the WOT, and 1 after. That lie. The lie I keep pointing out and you keep trying to pretend isn't really a lie by changing the definitions of what was said yet still failing to provide any facts. The lie that started this whole debate between us. Remember?
Again, this rather sad attempt at sarcasm simply highlights the inadequacies of what you're saying. Especially when you're now going back to US Soil meaning "within the US" whilst at the top of this post you try and broaden out the definition to "any US interests" So I'll repeat;
they're supporting the WOT on the basis of lies SUCH AS "there were more attacks on US soil/interests (whichever definition you like really) before the WOT than there have been since"
>
> What atrocities were commited by who? Who are you talking about? US
> troops in Iraq, Russians, British in Kosovo, who?
> Well how do you expect them to do it then? If not stopping
> everything, how, exactly? Go on, tell me, specifically how you would
> go about ending the WOT, because i don't see how it could be stopped
> without stopping everything.
Heh. Again, rather more of your "I'm going to make an unreasonable demand and if you don't tell me I'm going to tell you you're wrong". Specifically how I'd stop it? Funnily, I don't know specifically. I know generall of course;
How about;
- In Iraq, sort out a timetable for US troop withdrawal and give the new government full autonomy whilst involving the UN more
- In Chechnya, pull out and accept the fact that Chechnya wants independence. Or perhaps continue to occupy it without kidnapping, raping, and murdering quite so many civilians?
- In Kosovo, in all honesty I don't know enough about the current situation.
What I'm saying is, if troops HAVE to occupy a country for whatever reason, they should perhaps think twice about butchering the natives, or taking advantage of them, or manifestly bleeding a country of it's natural resources so that the occupying force look like they're there to help strip the land bare. Just a thought.
> Well as i said, i don't think the Americans care very much as at
> least they arn't attacking US cities, so it must be working on some
> level.
>
Heh. Let me get this straight; Al Quaida, the reason for the WOT in the first place, they don't matter? Americans "don't care" about the biggest mass murderer of Americans in world history? Are you quite sure about that?
Not attacking any cities? So why are there near endless terror alerts? What, doesn't that count as part of terrorism? After all, it causes terror does it not? I'd say the terrorists are continuing to succeed admirably.
This is utterly contemptible skarra; you're trying to brush aside the fact that the whole reason for this WOT is now being ignored by America, and trying to justify that by saying "well it's what americans think", when you've provided little to no evidence that that is what anyone beyond the Republican party and their supporters think.
> Again, was i wrong, have more US cities been attacked without my
> knowing since the WOT began?
No. Were any attacked before it was? The way I see it, there was one attack on the WTC prior to it, and one afterwards. So there were exactly the same amount of terrorist attacks on US soil both before and after the WOT began. Doesn't really back up your initially asserted lie, does it?
>
>
> I refer to the 9/11 as pre WOT, as indeed, it pretty much was. But
> since 9/11, when the full military might of the US has been brought
> to bear, there havn't been any attacks. So what if every Moslem
> nation is a no go for US citizens? Thats their prerogative.
> And the attacks elsewhere are not nearly as damaging as an attack on
> US soil. After all, the US military is big. 1000 troops arn't going
> to be all that damaging to them.
So what if....mwah hahahahahahaaaaa! So you think that US citizens being made prisoners of their own borders, that's alright and that people don't mind that? My word, you're a walking, talking poster boy for totalitarianism here aren't you? I'm stunned and slightly appalled at your casual and callous dismissal of the loss of US life abroad. Just so long as it doesn't happen at home eh?
Read that last paragraph back to yourself. You seem to be saying that most Americans don't care if they lose 100's or 1000's of troops (as if being a soldier somehow means they're not people and don't have loved ones who care for them...), and don't mind not being able to set foot outside their borders without being fearful...oh, and they don't actually mind being in constant fear of terror WITHIN their borders, just so long as there are no explosions within US soil. Have I got that right? Is that what you're saying?
>
> They were at home. It was a meeting place in the South-Eastern US.
> They were from all over, and all believed that they were safer.
...and the continued evasion of giving pretty much any info away about this increasingly legendary meeting you attended leads me to suspect that you're being economical with the truth. All I ask is that you tell me what the meeting was for, who organised it, and why. Not much, is it? Yet you avoid the subject. You're better at hiding your evasiveness than Bell or Forest, I'll grant you that. But you're evasive all the same.
>
> And Americans were loved before this were they? In places like
> Beiruit? Somalia? No, at least this way, they are hitting back. And
> so what if they get bad receptions in places? Like Kipling said,
> thats old, and expected. 'The hate of those ye guard' and all that.
Mm, hated so much that the people of Tehran held a candlelit vigil for the victims of 9/11. Could you see that happening now? Beirut? What, you mean that place next to the area where the US support atrocities by Israeli's against Palestinians but condemn anything vice versa?
Don't you think that perhaps an effort to engage with and address the many complaint levelled against them would have been better than an all out push to ensure that anyone who didn't hate 'em before will now?
What you're saying is completely illogical and starting to cross over into parody.
>
> By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya
> admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror
> could be won?
>
> I wasn't aware he said that.
[URL]http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=310579[/URL]
So do you still agree that Americans will be happy to be taken into a state of perpetual warfare against an enemy that cannot actually be defeated? And as a further question, have you ever read 1984?
> Right, start again. Before the WOT, there were a lot more un-proveked
> attacks on the US and its interests over seas. The fact that the
> building is in a combat zone means its bound to get attacked, but
> perhaps not because its a symbol on that nation when not in a combat
> zone, but just a military command post when in a combat zone.
Such as where? There was the attack on the WTC which was (i think) less than 10 years ago. And there was a boat attack on a US Naval vessel. In Neutral waters. What are these other attacks? Can you think of any at all? Are we including Oklahoma, Waco, and Ruby Ridge in the count? The 3 incidents that involved US citizens and not one single Moslem? If we are, why are Islamic nations being shat on for the actions of US Extremists?
I'll repeat; the statement that there were 5 attacks on US soil during Clinton's time as President is a bald faced, out-and-out lie. You know want to broaden it out to attacks on US interests? Okay; shall we discuss the murder of US citizens in Saudi since the WOT began?
All I'm asking skarra is for you to give me some indication that there is a kernel of truth behind the statement. Since I've asked, you've broadened out the definition of US Soil until it is quite differerent from the original implication. And yet, one STILL cannot see where these 5 attacks are supposed to have occured. If they happened then please, give me some examples; just cos I've not heard of them I'm quite prepared to accept they actually happened. However you're not giving me much help here.
>
>
> I would HATE to live like you. If somebody said something that
> may be incorrect, inaccurate or wrong through hindsight, you leap to
> your feet screaming, ITS A LIE, HES A LOW LIFE BLAIRITE SCUM OF A
> LIAR!!! Thats just a sad way to live, assuming that everybody is out
> to mislead you.
Well, your painful attempt at misdirection aside, you made a statement. That statement was untrue. You've done nothing whatsoever to back up that statement, preferring instead to deploy as many different semantics as possible to distract from the simple fact; the statement was untrue.
Wrong through hindsight? You still haven't even accepted the factual innacuracy of the statement despite it's manifest obviousness, and you've tried to justify it as having some sort of truth without giving a single fact. That coupled with your general evasiveness leads me to believe that you know it's a lie, but it suits you to repeat it for whatever reason.
Oh, and I never mentioned anything about you or your blairite tendencies; if you have a guilty conscience, that's your problem not mine.
> I made no such claim! I acnowledged a few posts back that some in the
> US may not agree with the WOT, but said that many do. I don't recall
> ever saying 100% of the US populas is behind it, i said that there
> must be a lot of support for it, otherwise Bush would be having a
> tougher time of it, in election and other areas.
Okay, fair enough. However, your initial statement said that it was your opinion on "the american perspective". You went on to admit (grudgingly) that not all Americans agree with the WOT, then quoted a few statistics about the US election in order to further claim that most Americans do support the WOT. Despite my showing how innacurate and misleading your use of those statistic was, and your accepting (in a fairly petulant manner) that you weren't correct, here you are agains saying that they must be true because "Otherwise Bush would be having a tougher time of it". Despite the fact I've already given a few stats showing he IS having a tougher time of it.
So why are you repeating discredited statements to shore up your belief in a lie?
> Please do, i didn't see, and have yet to see, wide spread mass
> demonstrations specifically against the WOT. I believe i have only
> seen a few protesters with signs ever relating to the WOT. If i'm
> wrong, and capital hill has been flooded with people specifically
> opposed to the WOT, do tell.
Ah yes; is this in the same way as you demand signed documents from Blair and Dubya expressly stating that even though they know there are no WOMD in Iraq, they're going to invade and what's more they're going to do it for the oil? Always an interesting approach; tell me, if I were to point to the enormous demonstrations against Dubya outside the Republican convention in NYC, would you simply complain that it wasn't specifically about the WOT, despite the fact that it (along with soaring unemployment) are the only noteworthy things abot Dubya's regime?
Okay; here is a list of US antiwar sites;
[URL]http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html#anchor1027606[/URL]
And here is a list of upcoming demonstrations in the US and the world;
[URL]http://www.warresisters.org/demos.htm[/URL]
Will that do you for starters, or would you like me to hunt out some signed affadavits from US citizens who demonstrated in NYC?
> It was a sporting event in the US, organised by private individuals.
And here you go again, being stultifying evasive which simply leads me to further believe that you know the organisers had a bias and you simply don't want to declare it because you know it'll rather blow your case out of the water. Where in the US? Who were these private individuals? Why was WOT discussed at a sporting event? Why did they organise the event?
>
> Not much bias at all. As i said, pretty much the only thing these
> people had in common, was their nationality. Different jobs,
> political stand points etc... and all agreed that the WOT is the way
> to go.
Well, as you're point blank refusing to give out much info or background about this meeting, I'll come right out and say it; I don't believe you. This thread reads like you're avoiding answering most of the points whilst trying to distract from that fact. And when caught out, you're resorting to mild sarcasm in the hope I'll give up. This is like arguing with a slightly more accomplished Belldandy.
Not much bias? Sure; that's why you won't say a damn thing about who and why it was organised. Not much in common? Well, it's hard for anyone else to say when you won't tell us a damn thing about it, isn't it? Thus far we only have your word, and to be honest I find that your increasing evasiveness makes it far more difficult to give any credence to what you say. Especially when we already know that your own personal bias is in favour of the war.
> What are these lies? Are they making it up that there have been no
> more US airliners falling out of the sky onto US soil? Have they lied
> that no more buildings have been brought down by terrorists? Have
> they lied and there have been more attacks within the US shore-line?
The lie that there were 5 attacks on US soil prior to the WOT, and 1 after. That lie. The lie I keep pointing out and you keep trying to pretend isn't really a lie by changing the definitions of what was said yet still failing to provide any facts. The lie that started this whole debate between us. Remember?
Again, this rather sad attempt at sarcasm simply highlights the inadequacies of what you're saying. Especially when you're now going back to US Soil meaning "within the US" whilst at the top of this post you try and broaden out the definition to "any US interests" So I'll repeat;
they're supporting the WOT on the basis of lies SUCH AS "there were more attacks on US soil/interests (whichever definition you like really) before the WOT than there have been since"
>
> What atrocities were commited by who? Who are you talking about? US
> troops in Iraq, Russians, British in Kosovo, who?
> Well how do you expect them to do it then? If not stopping
> everything, how, exactly? Go on, tell me, specifically how you would
> go about ending the WOT, because i don't see how it could be stopped
> without stopping everything.
Heh. Again, rather more of your "I'm going to make an unreasonable demand and if you don't tell me I'm going to tell you you're wrong". Specifically how I'd stop it? Funnily, I don't know specifically. I know generall of course;
How about;
- In Iraq, sort out a timetable for US troop withdrawal and give the new government full autonomy whilst involving the UN more
- In Chechnya, pull out and accept the fact that Chechnya wants independence. Or perhaps continue to occupy it without kidnapping, raping, and murdering quite so many civilians?
- In Kosovo, in all honesty I don't know enough about the current situation.
What I'm saying is, if troops HAVE to occupy a country for whatever reason, they should perhaps think twice about butchering the natives, or taking advantage of them, or manifestly bleeding a country of it's natural resources so that the occupying force look like they're there to help strip the land bare. Just a thought.
> Well as i said, i don't think the Americans care very much as at
> least they arn't attacking US cities, so it must be working on some
> level.
>
Heh. Let me get this straight; Al Quaida, the reason for the WOT in the first place, they don't matter? Americans "don't care" about the biggest mass murderer of Americans in world history? Are you quite sure about that?
Not attacking any cities? So why are there near endless terror alerts? What, doesn't that count as part of terrorism? After all, it causes terror does it not? I'd say the terrorists are continuing to succeed admirably.
This is utterly contemptible skarra; you're trying to brush aside the fact that the whole reason for this WOT is now being ignored by America, and trying to justify that by saying "well it's what americans think", when you've provided little to no evidence that that is what anyone beyond the Republican party and their supporters think.
> Again, was i wrong, have more US cities been attacked without my
> knowing since the WOT began?
No. Were any attacked before it was? The way I see it, there was one attack on the WTC prior to it, and one afterwards. So there were exactly the same amount of terrorist attacks on US soil both before and after the WOT began. Doesn't really back up your initially asserted lie, does it?
>
>
> I refer to the 9/11 as pre WOT, as indeed, it pretty much was. But
> since 9/11, when the full military might of the US has been brought
> to bear, there havn't been any attacks. So what if every Moslem
> nation is a no go for US citizens? Thats their prerogative.
> And the attacks elsewhere are not nearly as damaging as an attack on
> US soil. After all, the US military is big. 1000 troops arn't going
> to be all that damaging to them.
So what if....mwah hahahahahahaaaaa! So you think that US citizens being made prisoners of their own borders, that's alright and that people don't mind that? My word, you're a walking, talking poster boy for totalitarianism here aren't you? I'm stunned and slightly appalled at your casual and callous dismissal of the loss of US life abroad. Just so long as it doesn't happen at home eh?
Read that last paragraph back to yourself. You seem to be saying that most Americans don't care if they lose 100's or 1000's of troops (as if being a soldier somehow means they're not people and don't have loved ones who care for them...), and don't mind not being able to set foot outside their borders without being fearful...oh, and they don't actually mind being in constant fear of terror WITHIN their borders, just so long as there are no explosions within US soil. Have I got that right? Is that what you're saying?
>
> They were at home. It was a meeting place in the South-Eastern US.
> They were from all over, and all believed that they were safer.
...and the continued evasion of giving pretty much any info away about this increasingly legendary meeting you attended leads me to suspect that you're being economical with the truth. All I ask is that you tell me what the meeting was for, who organised it, and why. Not much, is it? Yet you avoid the subject. You're better at hiding your evasiveness than Bell or Forest, I'll grant you that. But you're evasive all the same.
>
> And Americans were loved before this were they? In places like
> Beiruit? Somalia? No, at least this way, they are hitting back. And
> so what if they get bad receptions in places? Like Kipling said,
> thats old, and expected. 'The hate of those ye guard' and all that.
Mm, hated so much that the people of Tehran held a candlelit vigil for the victims of 9/11. Could you see that happening now? Beirut? What, you mean that place next to the area where the US support atrocities by Israeli's against Palestinians but condemn anything vice versa?
Don't you think that perhaps an effort to engage with and address the many complaint levelled against them would have been better than an all out push to ensure that anyone who didn't hate 'em before will now?
What you're saying is completely illogical and starting to cross over into parody.
>
> By the way, did you hear this statement before or after Dubya
> admitted on live television that he didn't think the War on Terror
> could be won?
>
> I wasn't aware he said that.
[URL]http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=310579[/URL]
So do you still agree that Americans will be happy to be taken into a state of perpetual warfare against an enemy that cannot actually be defeated? And as a further question, have you ever read 1984?
Page: