Pathetic interview with Russian politician

Mighty_Mouse

Anyway, I mentioned those links to show the original poster that teh IRA weren't as "moral" as he'd like to think

So as long as a poster accepts that their off topic. Any posting is not allowed to be refuted If your so adament about another thread, start it. But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

sceptre

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

No, but I can (all of a sudden)

Week's holiday from the forum for anyone who chooses to talk about the IRA (on either side)instead of something even vaguely to do with the topic in this particular thread. It's only this childish need to have the last reprisal that caused the actual conflict to go on beyond ludicrous in the first place. I'd swear some of you do searches every morning for potential opportunities to get in a dig from either side.

talos

Some links:

statistics
public opinion 2001
forum
moscow streets

Hobbes

Necromancer wrote:

Your links are non-viewable as they bring us non registered ppl to a sign up page. The fact that the IRA has killed civilians doesnt actually negate the_syco's point that they showed a preference for military targets.

Use www.bugmenot.com, If you have firefox you can install the bugmenot extension and you can automatically log into these sites.

bonkey

Cheers Talos. Yet again, it would appear to say something other than the "statistics" that arcade presented.

How surprising.

jc

Redleslie2

I think Putin said during the week that the Chechens were being helped by western agencies who have an interest in keeping Russia weak. Has this got any credence?

talos

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think Putin said during the week that the Chechens were being helped by western agencies who have an interest in keeping Russia weak. Has this got any credence?

Do you meen this ?

talos

Very good article:

http://www.carnegie.ru/en/print/56870-print.htm

Look at "Chechnya" paragraph

from article

The tragedy of Chechnya (and of Russia) lies in the Chechens’ continuing inability to organize themselves politically - for peacetime reconstruction and nation-building. A prerequisite for any lasting political solution should be the formation of a credible Chechen authority that commands the support of both the population of the republic, the refugees, and the diaspora. This authority would develop a new constitution for Chechnya and negotiate its final status with Moscow.

arcadegame2004

The tragedy of Chechnya (and of Russia) lies in the Chechens’ continuing inability to organize themselves politically - for peacetime reconstruction and nation-building. A prerequisite for any lasting political solution should be the formation of a credible Chechen authority that commands the support of both the population of the republic, the refugees, and the diaspora. This authority would develop a new constitution for Chechnya and negotiate its final status with Moscow.

Aslan Maskhadov was elected President of Chechnya in the only fair elections to be held in Chechnya - not the rigged elections of Vichy-regimes. Putin should talk to him. Alternatively, he should talk to another separatist and stop these lies that all separatistis are "terrorists, child-killers etc." The Russian army are child-killers in Chechnya and Putin keeps handing out medals to those implicated in the massacres, so clearl Putin oly minds child-killing when it's of Russians. Putin's contention that Maskhadov shared responsibility with Basayev (whom I accept from his previous admissions of responsibilities of terror attacks was involved in all likeliehood) sounds like lies designed to end the pressure on Putin to talk to him. By labelling even the most moderate elements of Chechen separatism as "terrorist" Putin has backed himself into a corner from which he will lose a lot of face if he talks to ANYONE, no matter who they are. Then again, he does not face re-election under the Russian constitution due to the two-terms rule. But his sycophants in the Duman were talking a while ago about handing him a third term, while he said back then that he had to refuse. But was that just a PR stunt?

Stony, emotionless, remorseless Putin will probably continue his brutal slaughter, rape and torture of the Chechen people, driving them into the arms of extremists, while preaching again from the pulpit about "the war on terror which we all face blah blah blah YAWN!". I contend that the war against Russian troops - PROVIDED IT DOES NOT TARGET CIVILIANS - is also a war on terror - Russian terror. A people being exterminated has no option but to take up arms. Terrorism is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I contend daveirl that the Famine was state-sponsored genocide for the following reasons:

A:There was actually a surplus of food in Ireland at the time. It's just that Irish people couldn't afford it because we had been practically reduced to serfdom.

B:American aid-ships were blocked from landing for 2 years of the Famine by the Royal Navy. You have to ask WHY.

C:A British parliamentary committee had warned in around 1837 that a famine was on the way and the British DID NOTHING.

Also, who could not consider what Cromwell did to be genocide? He killed 300,000 of us. I'd call that genocide. Putin is the successor of Cromwell, visited on the Chechens this time. You can almost sense the evil from that stony stare of his.

SkepticOne

the_syco wrote:

Chechnya shouldn't have bombed Russia when they got independence after the Berlin Wall fell. A few other USSR states got independence. Chechnya got it, bombed Russia, and they've been bombing each other since. Yes, I've seen teh sh*t that goes on in Chechnya, but no-one cares.

Not quite. They declared independence in 1991 but it was never grated and from Moscows point of view, Chechnya remains part of the Russian Federation. Brief history here.

arcadegame2004

Could people here please stop using the definite article when referring to Chechens involved in the terrorist attack in Beslan? It is racist to call them "the Chechens", because it tars an entire race with the same brush.

How would we feel if an IRA bombing in London was referred internationally as an attack by "the Irish"?

Same goes for the invasion of Shamil Basayev's men of Dagestan in 1999.

SOME Chechens. Not THE Chechens.

sceptre

Er, considering your usage of "The Russians" up the page, their imperial mindset, "the Russians" being absolutely delighted by Putin's "policy" based on reading the views of a few blokes on the interwebulator who say they're Russian and obviously must be representative of almost everyone and an opinion poll that obviously neither includes all "the Russians" on Putin's side (ignoring the representative nature of the poll so it's an indication of the views of "some Russians" extended to "more Russians"), moving from Putin saying that if necessary they'd kill the lot and applying it as a view of "these people", I reckon you should get your own house in complete order before criticising anyone else's use of the word "the". You meant "most" or "almost all" Russians yeah? Cos that's what you pretty much said you meant. I tend to view "almost all" as being practically equivalent to "all" (well, almost) but perhaps that's just me.

That's aside from the fact that the last usage of "the" applied to any Chechens I can see came from Redleslie2, who's obviously (and a monkey could see it) applying it to the Chechens who are involved in insurgency/seperatism and/or secession by military means/freedom fighting/killing children/make up your own term and presumably only those Chechens, I can't see what you're rabbiting on about. I mean, good lord, we still talk about "the invasion of Scotland by the Irish" even though not everyone had a boat, the "retention of Catholicism by the Irish (or 'Ireland') even though there were plenty of Protestants who didn't have their houses burned, the actions of "the landlords" back in the nineteenth century and before although there were quite a few who were nice to their tenants. It's poor diction (I suppose) but it's neither an argument clincher or a hanging offence.

Now I'm off into the kitchen to look for "The teabags" even though there may be teabags elsewhere that I don't own. I know my girlfriend has a small collection of teabags, there may even be teabags not controlled by me or my immediate family. See, context that can't be misinterpreted.


Now totally aside, and purely out of interest can you knock me out some source for 300,000 Irish people killed by Cromwell? Nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it's just I can't seem to make the figure out of the 5000-odd (IIRC) at Drogheda, 3-4000 at Wexford, few thousand at Clonmel, Limerick, Athlone and so on and I'm wondering how many old people died on the walk to the Wesht. I can fudge a few figures in my mind to possibly make 30,000 but 300,000 is rather higher than we would have been told in national school (even accounting for all the kiddies sent to Monserrat and the like and anyone who died on a boat after being sold). Personally, I don't want or need a discussion on Cromwell in a thread about the Russiand and the Chechens so any kind of half-breakdown would be of personal interest (given that the English deaths were about 200,000 and I've no idea about the Scots).

talos

Then again, he does not face re-election under the Russian constitution due to the two-terms rule

What do you meen by this "two-terms rule"?

Putin was elected two times (there was 2 elections).

sceptre

talos wrote:

What do you meen by this "two-terms rule"?

Putin was elected two times (there was 2 elections).

Aye, he just can't go for a third term under the Russian Federation Constitution (I presume that's in article 4) so he's limited to two.

However he's currently got enough deputies in both the Federalnoye Sobraniye and the Duma to change that constitutional provision if he likes. Hasn't shown any sign of wanting to do so but then he's got about forty months until the next election.

Sand

AG2004 - word of advice - you cannot go around making generalisations about "the russians" and then go around criticising people for talking about "the chechens". To do so makes you look like a fool. Youve walked into a wall with that - accept youve let your emotional attachment to the plight of the Chechen people get the better of your reason and move on.

Now I'm off into the kitchen to look for "The teabags" even though there may be teabags elsewhere that I don't own. I know my girlfriend has a small collection of teabags, there may even be teabags not controlled by me or my immediate family. See, context that can't be misinterpreted.

Almost good enough for my new signiature, but not good enough sadly - Ill need something especially offensive to top the reaction Ive got to my current one. Some people just dont appreciate reality:|

arcadegame2004

AG2004 - word of advice - you cannot go around making generalisations about "the russians" and then go around criticising people for talking about "the chechens". To do so makes you look like a fool. Youve walked into a wall with that - accept youve let your emotional attachment to the plight of the Chechen people get the better of your reason and move on.

Well why did the Russians re-elect him then. OOPS. I mean the majority. Why did they majority of Russians vote for Vladimir the Terrible?

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well why did the Russians re-elect him then. OOPS. I mean the majority. Why did they majority of Russians vote for Vladimir the Terrible?

The re-election? Ignoring Chechnya for a moment (which was more important for his first election), there was the 13% flat rate of income tax introduced in period 1 (when the State's spending is worse than useless for ordinary people in almost all circumstances no-one would argue for higher taxes[1]), the state monopoly deregulation and the continuation of privatisation of housing and land. Add in the taking on board of Joe Stiglitz's criticism of the early period of Russia's conversion to a capitalist economy (which frankly was a mess and it was the IMF's fault for being a bunch of plonkers) which after the economic policies were re-tuned to Stiglitz's way of thinking led to the life of the average Russian who lived nowhere near an internal border getting far better and people tend to go for that kind of thing.

I don't like Putin but for most people, after the seeing off of a period of instability that they think might affect them, it's all about the economy, whether they can buy a washing machine, how many roubles they have in their pocket, how many of those the government takes away, whether they can ever afford to buy a house (or more to the point whether they're ever legally allowed to own one), whether they can get an apple without queueing for an hour in the morning to buy it, the possibility of owning a Pepsi bottle with Pepsi in it and all those insignificant things that people spend all their time thinking about. The stability thing. For lots of Russians, Putin succeeded where Yeltsin failed completely and where lots of them think Gorbachev failed them. They felt particularly failed by Yeltsin with all the hope they'd heaped on the guy from 1990ish on (even those Russian dolls you could buy (can't find mine) long before Yeltsin's presidential win with Gorbachev inside Yeltsin made that obvious on the streets even without asking anyone) - Putin gave them apples[2]. Bottom line, half of Rusia felt cheated by Yeltsin.

Putin gave them something they felt they never had before - relative freedom (certainly compared to pre-1990), relative prosperity (certainly compared to pre-1990 and post-1990 as well) and relatively speaking, choices they never had before (I'm not including foreign travel - most ordinary people don't have the money to go anywhere, even to the seaside). I still think Putin is a nationalistic press-controlling nut who thinks the ends are the means and who's surrounded by two groups of idiots (the nationalistic wing and the shower who made money under Yeltsin) who are two steps away from each others throats and happy to invade neighbouring countries and oppress the poor given half a chance but you didn't ask about that. That's why the common folk voted for him the second time. Low taxes, home ownership, Pepsi and apples. They never had those four things before at the same time.

<edit>
It's funny you brought up Cromwell earlier in the thread. Here in Ireland and in Scotland we think of the guy as a grade-A asshole because of all the people he massacred. In England he still made the top 10 of Greatest Britons (voted for by the hoi polloi) because of what his reign (for want of a better word) meant for British democracy. It's like the way that Lord Denning is regarded universally as a dufus in criminal law but regarded as having the architect of a genius in contract law. Now both evaluations are true, but as to which evaluation is more true, it usually depends on the relative extent to which anyone feels affected by one side or the other. And that's the way a lot of people think - no-one ever extended the "would you kill one innocent child for peace prosperity or democracy" question to killing a few thousand or a few hundred thousand when they were in power (given that they weren't and they were people they didn't know).

Whatever about Putin's foreign policy (or far off internal policy for those who look at it that way), whatever about his policy on a free press or lack thereof, the common people (who after all, are always most interested in the wellbeing of themselves and their extended clan[3]) know the guy (in their view) as the man who brought them so much bread that they could eat it and make houses out of it that they could own themselves where before they had nothing and went hungry. You can't win an election against someone like that. Not even if he eats babies with his eggs.
</edit>


[1]And in any case it follows elementary Keynesian economic theory, which is always better for an economy that's worth next to nothing with an immense labour surplus, pretty much without exception and without argument. You can't tax people who have virtually nothing

[2]I know I'm labouring the apple thing but the apple queues really hit me, even though they were crap apples, as well as the way people would carefully wrap up the good fruit provided by those nice Aeroflot folks to have something nice to give the kiddies. I could use "washing machines" instead but you only buy one of those every few years whereas everyone wants apples

[3]And you don't get to criticise a people for looking out for their own wellbeing to the potential detriment of others as you're our resident expert on that. I'm just stating it as fact, I've judged it elsewhere

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

So as long as a poster accepts that their off topic. Any posting is not allowed to be refuted If your so adament about another thread, start it. But you can't not allow people answer you in this one. IMO

I *think* this may get me a weeks banning, but what the hey...

Mighty_Mouse, it was not my intention to stifle debate on the issue, I just foresaw the reactions of bonkey and Sceptre above. If anyone feels strongly enough about it, start another thread and I'll try to answer any points put across, or PM me to discuss it privately.

Hope that'll suffice.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Could people here please stop using the definite article when referring to Chechens involved in the terrorist attack in Beslan? It is racist to call them "the Chechens", because it tars an entire race with the same brush.

Practise what you preach!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well why did the Russians re-elect him then. OOPS. I mean the majority. Why did they majority of Russians vote for Vladimir the Terrible?

Taking a different angle to Sceptre's post (which I agree with also), one should not forget the lack of information - and probable surplus of disinformation - the average Russian will have over what is actually happening.

While it may be easy for us to sit on our side of the world, with access to a myriad of presumably-more-accurate media, its easy to argue that Putin is a monster, but how much of this does the average Russian know. Not the Russians with internet connections etc. but the tens of millions of others who don't have these luxuries?

Results that effect them...that they can see. What happens in Chechnya....well, you said it yourself arcade....the media just aren't allowed "spill the beans" to the population.

jc


jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, given that you said you have Russian friends (by which I assume you mean ones living in Ireland), who therefore have access to accurate information, I would be interested in you telling me what there view is on the Russian butchery in Chechnya. If as you are saying the attitudes of Russians in Russia is due to media-censorship, then what are the attitudes of Russians you know?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If as you are saying the attitudes of Russians in Russia is due to media-censorship, then what are the attitudes of Russians you know?

Pretty much the same as the attitude of the vast majority of Northern Irish people I knew/know. That first and foremost they want the killing to stop.

Its not a question of who started it, or who did what. Its a question of it stopping.

jc

Victor

So what to do without all that Russian oil.*

*Which for a very long time ran every flight out of the country and all the busses in it.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I watched Prime Time tonight. Am I the only one outraged at Miriam's failure to bring up the issue of Russians massacre's in Chechnya?

I am astounded by your suggestion that we should only criticise genocide when it is commited by regimes that are not major trading partners of this country.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

All the countries engaged in genocide at the moment are poor countries compared to us. Hence we have nothing to lose from criticising them.

It would appear Miriam O'Callaghan isn't the only one afraid to ask difficult questions, you just aim your difficult questions at those less wealthy than ourselves.

You are a hypocrite.

arcadegame2004

therecklessone wrote:

I am astounded by your suggestion that we should only criticise genocide when it is commited by regimes that are not major trading partners of this country.



It would appear Miriam O'Callaghan isn't the only one afraid to ask difficult questions, you just aim your difficult questions at those less wealthy than ourselves.

You are a hypocrite.

therecklessone, can you name a present-day Western country engaged in genocide? I happen to be right.

I would say that what the Americans did to the Indian population was genocide. But I am referring to the here and now. What did I say that you find factually incorrect?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

therecklessone, can you name a present-day Western country engaged in genocide? I happen to be right.

In your own words sunshine:

a small country dependent on exports to the US and the EU needs to tread carefully, possibly including keeping their mouths shut sometimes.

Where would you draw the line? You are happy to tar all Russians with the one brush when it comes to Chechnya and your allegations of genocide, I would like to know when you would put aside economic concerns and speak out against the actions of a major trading partner? Are all actions forgiveable unless committed by states with which we have no economic ties?

I refer you to the hypothetical question I asked you in another thread (which you have yet to answer):

If Nazi Germany had been a major trading partner of this country, would you have advocated we kept our mouths shut in the face of that regimes barbarity?

arcadegame2004

If Nazi Germany had been a major trading partner of this country, would you have advocated we kept our mouths shut in the face of that regimes barbarity?

No certainly not. But the US isn't committing genocide. I recall though that De Valera avoiding almost any criticism of Nazi Germany, as he feared Hitler might come after us in that situation. He was in a very difficult position, especially as in 1940-1 everyone thought Britain was about to fall.

In cases of economic considerations and human-rights ones, a careful balance has to be struck, depending on the extremities of the alleged human-rights abuses. I consider genocide to be the worst of all crimes - and I hope the others on this board share that assertion. So when genocide is happening, I would condemn it unreservedly and urge our governments to do likewise. On Abu Ghraib, I would condemn those carrying out the abuses but I would be very careful not to criticise the US openly on it, because the scale of abuses there, horrific as they seem and are, is not on the same scale as genocide. We should also remember that the US is putting persons responsible on trial, thus demonstrating their abhorance of what happened. The same cannot be said about Russia, where only 1 Russian soldier that I am aware of was tried for crimes in Chechnya (the murder of a 2 year old girl).

I read somewhere that the Russian army has designated 90% of Chechnya as environmentally-unsafe. Why is it unsafe? Could it be all the bodies in mass-graves?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I consider genocide to be the worst of all crimes - and I hope the others on this board share that assertion. So when genocide is happening, I would condemn it unreservedly and urge our governments to do likewise.

Nice of you to finally clear that up.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

On Abu Ghraib, I would condemn those carrying out the abuses but I would be very careful not to criticise the US openly on it, because the scale of abuses there, horrific as they seem and are, is not on the same scale as genocide.

And if it were Russia who was carrying out such abuses?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I read somewhere that the Russian army has designated 90% of Chechnya as environmentally-unsafe. Why is it unsafe? Could it be all the bodies in mass-graves?

Is your concusion based on fact, or are you just assuming that to be the case?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In cases of economic considerations and human-rights ones, a careful balance has to be struck, depending on the extremities of the alleged human-rights abuses.

Everything you have said to date suggests that you would turn a blind eye to all crimes bar genocide if committed by an economic powerhouse. How can you expect anyone to listen to your criticism of human rights abuses when you are so selective in your condemnation? Would you apply the same standard to domestic law in this country?

arcadegame2004

Well therecklessone, I would recommend that this country not place itself in the position of developing deep trade ties with countries that are commiting serious and widespread abuses of human-rights e.g. China. I strongly oppose the attempts of Irish and other EU governments to deepen such ties, because it may place us in the kind of difficulties I mentioned with regard to balancing our economic-wellbeing with human-rights considerations.

I got my figures on the 90% statistic from a human-rights website, though I have read so many in the last few days that I am uncertain which it was, but if an when I find it again I will post the link. It is highly suspicious that an army is making a decision like this.

Everything you have said to date suggests that you would turn a blind eye to all crimes bar genocide if committed by an economic powerhouse. How can you expect anyone to listen to your criticism of human rights abuses when you are so selective in your condemnation? Would you apply the same standard to domestic law in this country?

In our own country, we should have no fear of criticising human-rights abuses. We are not going to lose business or jobs by such criticisms. But you know that extremely serious human-rights abuses are not committed by the State in this country on a widespread scale. However, in Donegal, I would condemn the apparent conspiracy by some Gardai to have Frank McBrearty locked off for a crime he didn't commit.