Bloody end to Russia school siege

redspider

First off, the killings and maimings and other injuries suffered in Beslan are appalling, and every right minded individual condemns them like I do. I realise that the parents and relations of all those affected, as those affected by the underground bomb in Moscow and the bombings of the two jet planes, will have little solace.

However, all people and governments must wonder why terrorists go to such lengths for their causes, and are willing to put their lives down and kill innocents in such a cowardly and abhorrent manner. Unlike for example the US media and Government and those of many other countries, it is not a case that these terrorists are evil for the sake of being evil, that it is their choice, that one day on the golf course and after leaving home their merc sedan or suv they decide, I better go and cause some terrorism today because I am evil, part of the "axis of evil". What is necessary by any right thinking individuals is towork out why anyone would go to such terribl elengths? Why are they in a suicide position, as it clearly was in Beslan. They were all on "one way tickets".

The problems in the Caucuses are boiling up in several countries, as is typical after peoples and nations have been subjected to centuries of forced colonialism. The question is what should the "powers that be" do in these countries and how to resolve the conflicts. So far, the west (US + EU) has ignored the Chechen issue, but there are others in the region.

Dagestan.
Azerbijan
Ingushetia
North Ossetia
South Ossetia (in Georgia)
Georgia
Kabadino Balkaria

Russia as the invader of centuries past have moved peoples and the picture is of course very blurred. There is also infighting and tribal rivalries as well as ethnic divisions. I have not investigated it but this is an area that has seen many's a conflict.

Obviously what Russia did in Chechnya, more or less flattening Grozny, is clearly wrong and immoral by any right minded individual.

There is no easy answer, but it is incumbent upon all of us to ty and solve these pockets of problems throughout the globe. Today, its Beslan, nest year it will be somewhere else, but the problems are there all the time. The symptoms are the atocities.

arcadegame2004

Your hipocrisy is rank arcadegame, you talk away the deaths of those people while muttering about genies in bottle's, and from you who has been screaming about the sufferings of innocent people to simply dismiss the deaths of a thousand with well thats not as many as ... how about I say the chechans let the genie out of the bottle with their criminal and terroristic ways and they are paying the price, anyway I reckon you showed your true colours, you have no concern for the innocent civilians being killed anywhere, you just picked a team and you are supporting them, bit like a game of football, are you banned from the football forum hmmm

I naturally condemn the murders of innocent civilians. But it should be remembered that reports from the Kosovar Albanian refugees at the time were that their Serbian neighbours were actively involved in mass-killings of Albanians. Recall what happened in former German territories after WW2 when millions of Germans were expelled from their. I feel sorry for the innocent among them who were expelled, just like those innocent Serbs. But those who actively helped the imperial power commit genocide were just getting a taste of their own medicine. I repeat - I am referring to the punishment meated out to those Serbs ACTIVELY involved in the mass-killings in Kosovo. The international community seemed to recognise the principle that an oppressor nationa engaged in genocide may have forfeited its right to rule over the territory affected, e.g. redrawing of Germany's boundaries after WW2. I feel that this calls into question Russia's right to rule Chechnya, or at least it should.

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I naturally condemn the murders of innocent civilians. But it should be remembered that reports from the Kosovar Albanian refugees at the time were that their Serbian neighbours were actively involved in mass-killings of Albanians. Recall what happened in former German territories after WW2 when millions of Germans were expelled from their. I feel sorry for the innocent among them who were expelled, just like those innocent Serbs. But those who actively helped the imperial power commit genocide were just getting a taste of their own medicine. I repeat - I am referring to the punishment meated out to those Serbs ACTIVELY involved in the mass-killings in Kosovo. The international community seemed to recognise the principle that an oppressor nationa engaged in genocide may have forfeited its right to rule over the territory affected, e.g. redrawing of Germany's boundaries after WW2. I feel that this calls into question Russia's right to rule Chechnya, or at least it should.

Yup, why should Russia be so large anyway?
And America, what right do they have to rule the Native Americans?

pork99

omnicorp wrote:

Yup, why should Russia be so large anyway?
And America, what right do they have to rule the Native Americans?

Conquest in both cases

pork99

Nuttzz wrote:

Dead man walking

arcadegame2004

Yup, why should Russia be so large anyway?
And America, what right do they have to rule the Native Americans?

Well I suppose it wasn't until the 20th century that the international-community introduced various conventions on human-rights. American genocide of the Indian population occurred in the 19th century, whereas the Russians are still at it now at the start of the 21st century. The current American government is not responsible for what happened 100 years and more ago, whereas the current Russian one is still clinging on stubbornly to imperial dogma's and traditional ethnic-repression. So there is perhaps a difference. Even so, I would agree with with your point on the United States were they committing genocide there now. Your point on Russia though is entirely legitimate.

Victor

The international community seemed to recognise the principle that an oppressor nationa engaged in genocide may have forfeited its right to rule over the territory affected, e.g. redrawing of Germany's boundaries after WW2.

Nothing to do with genocide. The principles were (a) punishment for agression (Versailles via the back door) and (b) acquisition of territory by war / treaty.

Victor

According to statistics collected by the UN criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague, 1,192 Serbs have been killed, 1,303 kidnapped and 1,305 wounded in Kosovo this year. .... Last summer, in one of the more grisly massacres, two Serb youths were killed and four others wounded by ethnic Albanian militants while swimming in the Bistrica River, near Pec.

Aside from that website having a certains slant, these figures don't sit comfortably. If two deaths are worth mentioning (which led to a further 18-20 deaths in subsequent disturbances). How come the other average 3 deaths (sorry 3 killed) per day aren't worth mentioning or detailing?

rusty_babe04

As you all must agree with me the siege was very brutal and apsolutly depressing. But imagine if u were there, Lieing on the hard ground, tearing off your clothes cause of the heat, No toilet, Crowded, starving, thirsty, watching people get killed right in front of you. Most of the people you would see brutaly hurt or murdered would be a class mate or a family member. With that in mind you would want revenge against the people who suppoted this. Wouldnt you? But that is what is wrong with the world today. We create more mess, the mess gets so big we can not fix it. So with the familys and the victoms of the siege in mind, I pray for them.
undefinedundefined

redspider

I think its difficult equating conquests/invasions with each other as there are normally many different circumstances and effects and hence no two are equal. Bringing Serb/Croat/Bosnian examples into this thread doesn't help as they are not comparable.

For example, the European (mainly) invasion of North America resulted in the complete routing of the native population. The natives were forcibily removed from their lands to "reservations" and are still persecuted to this day. I know some of their story quite well having worked with a guy who was quarter Cherokee in the US some years ago. That wrong has not been righted and probably never will because it is too late and would involve too much money in reparations. ie: the natives own ALL of the US!

The South American natives fared better probaby for different reasons. There were more of them, fewer "invaders" and they mixed more readily.

And there are still problems in African nations after their European invasions.

In terms of the Russian situation, I was in Russia (heading the Soviet Union then) in the late 1980's and bought a map in russian which showed all of the internal provinces of the soviet block, including those territories that are now inside Russian, such as Chechnya, Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, etc. What is clear from this map is that Russia the country, just like the British empire, is an amalgamation of conquests.

In a way, all countries are from their original beginings as local chiefs extended their powers, amalgamated, etc. Even Germany and Italy are recent 18th century examples of those. So the concept of a country in itself is a nebulous thing and can change, but it is really up to the people within an area to decide if they want to be in a certain country (grouping) or not.

For example, if you put it to the people of the 32-counties in Ireland whether they wanted Ireland to be one country or part of it remaining in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (UKoGBaNI), to give it its legal title, you may get a yes. However, this is not recognised by the UK government and there is no power on earth (not the UN) that will force their hand, whether it is right or not.

If you put it to the Native peoples of north america if they want their lands returned (ie: the whole of the US), they would probably vote yes, yet there is no power on earth that would give the this right at the moment. It is a similar situation with the Australian natives.

So called internal conflicts are difficult to resolve.

In many of these situations, it becomes a lot more problematic when there have been large movements of people over time. For example, so many european-descented people in north america make that problem more or less intractable. Another example, english and scottish people "planted" in Ireland.

In the case of India, as there were few english people relative to the native population, it was only a matter of time before the natives would out-vote the invaders.

So back to the Caucuses. There are clearly groupings of peoples, ethnically and culturally who are not Russian. There is also clearly numbers of Russians that have migrated to these lands over the years, and may be culturally closer to the Urals than the Caspian. But it is up to the people in the region to decide. There is no global structure in place to allow them to do so and there are a lot of rivalries. Places can become a patchwork quilt of ethnic groupings and cultures, such as the Balkans, such as the Caucauses, such as Belfast!

Its also clear that if there are many migrated populations, then it is more difficult to solve, as descendants dont want to move or give up what they believe is rightfully theirs.

An example of that was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait which is a "made-up" country/fiefdom after the european wars of the 20th century was historically "always" part of Persia/Iraq. Saddam used the historical consequence of this as an excuse for his invasion.

No killings or other mis-treatment by Terrorists or Governments are ethically or morally correct. The Governments of the world have the option of making the right steps to right these wrongs, as they have the mandate, the power and the weaponry to do so. But as can be seen from many conflicts and disputes around the world, from Corsica, to the Caucauses to Crossmaglen, most Governments do NOT proactively try to do so.

The world is a mixed up place with so many things that need fixing. We have to start somewhere, and each problem needs to be treated separately and the issues sorted out.

pork99

stas wrote:

Hello all,

There's a special bank account in Beslan opened specifically for donations and we are trying to collect some money among us Russian-speaking people living in Ireland. I know we can not return those who have died, but at least we can help those who still alive and support grieving relatives.

All the money collected will be sent to this account and bank receipt will be available, we're making a list of people with the names and amounts donated so it will be easy to see how much we've collected and what did we send. We'll also try to make sure that this is a genuine account.
If anyone interested in donating any amount (even 1-2 euro) or if you have any queries or suggestions - please contact me at 087 9356760 or at webmaster@virtualireland.ru. My name is Stas. Thank you.

Best regards.

I know this guy, he's genuine - so please open your wallets (I'm donating anyway)

Victor

redspider wrote:

In terms of the Russian situation, I was in Russia (heading the Soviet Union then) in the late 1980's and bought a map in russian which showed all of the internal provinces of the soviet block, including those territories that are now inside Russian, such as Chechnya, Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, etc. What is clear from this map is that Russia the country, just like the British empire, is an amalgamation of conquests.

Hence it was known as the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (RSFSR) and now Russian Federation. And when it was an empire, that stretched from the Borders of Germany and Sweden to Canada, it gradually came together from the original native Russian areas with tribal areas and tundra added on.

Handy maps here http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm see the one half way down.

redspider

Victor wrote:

Hence it was known as the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (RSFSR) and now Russian Federation. Handy maps here http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm

That is an excellent link Victor and confirms the point I was making that the current Russia is a colonial empire. North Ossetia is not part of Muscovy nor is Chechnya, Siberia, etc. Like many of the other empires that have come and gone (Roman, Ottoman, etc), the Russian one may not hold forever, but that will depend on the factors that have gone into its current make-up, such as the culture of the people that are living in the various areas now.

I think that if the invasions/conquests of 1000-2004 can be sorted out (rolled back in an amicable manner), such as returning foriegn owned lands to the people that live there (used to live there before large mass movements), then potential wars of the future and deaths and terrorism could be avoided.

The world is now in a position to allow people to live together. We have the tools (and technology) to live in a self-sufficient planet and in harmony, but it wont be an easy project to do.

Victor

redspider wrote:

North Ossetia is not part of Muscovy nor is Chechnya, Siberia, etc.

But Russians have been in Siberia for hundreds of years. The Mongols are long gone.

such as returning foriegn owned lands to the people that live there (used to live there before large mass movements)

But the people who used to live there are long dead.

redspider wrote:

I think that if the invasions/conquests of 1000-2004 can be sorted out (rolled back in an amicable manner),

Shall we restore the High Kings to Tara?

bonkey

redspider wrote:

I think that if the invasions/conquests of 1000-2004 can be sorted out (rolled back in an amicable manner), such as returning foriegn owned lands to the people that live there (used to live there before large mass movements), then potential wars of the future and deaths and terrorism could be avoided.

I can just see 200+ million people in the US handing over ownership of everything to a relative handful of native Americans.....

And why stop at 1000 AD? (Although its a nice point - it includes the Battle of Hastings, so most of modern-day England would need to cease to exist). Surely there's bound to be some animosities older than that? Are those peopel not going to get more irate if everyone else gets "justice", but they're told "sorry son....1000 years is as far back as we go. Your people's injustice was 1100 years ago, so you just have to accept it now...its statute of limitations has expired, so to speak".

Why not roll back the influence of the Romans? The Greeks? The Carthagenians?

And thats just in Europe. Lets not forget the Asian empires have been around even longer in some cases. Why stop rolling back there after 1,000 years?

Rolling things back isn't the solution. Not only is it infeasible, it also assumes that none of the "newly disenfranchised" will have a problem. Consider...your "solution" would involve the North of Ireland being folded back into teh Republic. You don't think there's gonna be some people living up there who then feel that their several hundred years of Britishness has been stolen from them, and they will then turn to violence to get it back???

Its a nice idea, but it's no solution.

jc

Victor

bonkey wrote:

Consider...your "solution" would involve the North of Ireland being folded back into teh Republic. You don't think there's gonna be some people living up there who then feel that their several hundred years of Britishness has been stolen from them, and they will then turn to violence to get it back???

Whoot! Do we get parts of Scotland back too?

redspider

I agree with both of you (Victor and bonkey) that we cant just pick some arbitrary date like 1000 to go "back to". It wasn't a serious solution per se.

I guess the key point here is that many of the current global problems are due to the historical paths of how we got to where we are today, whether last year, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or a 1,000 or more years ago, and most of that has been through wars and conquests and mal-treatment.

Its recognising this and trying to rectify the situations that we are in today in a practical and reasonably fair manner is whatwe should be doing but its very difficult to do. As you rightly point out, everyone from those times are dead, some peoples/groupings have been wiped out or sub-sumed, and today's people are a mixture of those people back then. So who has a right and who hasn't a right? Its too difficult to tell.

But just because these problems are difficult, it should not mean that we ignore them and carry on as we are now. You will observe that the peoples who have done the conquesting and are still benefitting do not give up their current situation voluntarily as they see it as their right. Some problem areas are more easily to solve, rectify, create some reparation than others.

Rolling back everything is of course unworkable, but there are problem areas that could be addressed, such as Native Americans (north and south), Australian Natives, sammi (lapland), Basques, Catalans, Chechens, Ossetians, etc, etc. Not all in the same way, each case would need to be looked at differently and each may have a unique solution.

But people should be given voices to their grievances at a global level, before the problems of death and mayhem reach us in the media. Then, it is too late for at least someone.

I dont have any easy answers .....

redspider

bonkey wrote:

And why stop at 1000 AD? ... "sorry son....1000 years is as far back as we go. Your people's injustice was 1100 years ago, so you just have to accept it now...its statute of limitations has expired, so to speak".

LOL .... very good, I had a good laugh ....

bonkey

I dont have any easy answers .....

Heh. Loads of people have easy answers.....unfortunately they're also the people who haven't realised there are no easy solutions

redspider wrote:

I guess the key point here is that many of the current global problems are due to the historical paths of how we got to where we are today, whether last year, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or a 1,000 or more years ago, and most of that has been through wars and conquests and mal-treatment.

It might sound obvious-to-the-point-of-stupidity, but realistically all of our problems stem from history - from something that happened, or didn't happen, or was perceived to have happened, or whatever.

You will observe that the peoples who have done the conquesting and are still benefitting do not give up their current situation voluntarily as they see it as their right.

You don't even have to limit that to conquest. By and large, people see benefiting from a situation as their right....once they are the ones benefiting. Once they are the ones suffering, it is their right not to suffer.

This dichotomy, this lack of honest and balanced perspective is at the heart of much of it.

But people should be given voices to their grievances at a global level, before the problems of death and mayhem reach us in the media. Then, it is too late for at least someone.

They should indeed. Unfortunately, for that to actually mean something would require that enough "big players" had already balanced their perspectives and were willing to encourage/force others to do the same (without making said others feel they were losing rights).

Its a catch 22 situation really.

jc

elivsvonchiaing

bonkey wrote:

...And why stop at 1000 AD? .....Rolling things back isn't the solution. Not only is it infeasible, it also assumes that none of the "newly disenfranchised" will have a problem....

1878 years has been tried and it does quite illustrate your point. Can't see peace under Sharon - or for 100 years for that matter.