Chechnya

[Raisa]

The Chechen rebels are up to some dispicable crap lately. Chechnya is a little place in southern Russia that wants to be its own country. The issue with Chechya is that, after the soviet union fell all these other countries got to be recognized independantly and be their own country, but Chechnya did not. So to this day there are people who are real pissed for obvious reasons in Chechnya. They want to have their own country.

I think that the acts from the Chechen rebels against the Russian people are the fault of the Russian government who seems willing to hold the nation of Chechnya hostage at any cost.
The Russian government rather sacrifice its own people, then to just give those people their damn country already. What does Russia have in Chechnya that it cant let go of?
If we are going to be logical then I think that if all these other people are being respected as countries, I fail to see why chechyna is not getting the same treatment.

What is your opinion on Chechen independance?

[cormacobear]

The majority of the militant groups in Chechnya are muslim fanatics, with clear ties to Al Quaida. I feel bad for the common people of Chechnya who have endured some of the most prolific violence in recent history.

If they want to froma democratic republic i'm all for it but I would hate to see the Chechnyans gain independance only to end up under an oppressive Iran like regime.

[socialistfuture]

the should at least be able to elect their own people and have the say over what goes on in chechnya. i think it is comparable to basque country in spain or the chiapas in mexico.
democracy is meant to ensure you have the right to control ure own area - anyone surrounded by soilders is obviously in occupied territory.

[Comrade Hector]

Chechnya should have the right to independence from Russia. Much of the Russian government hate Chechen people as it is, but only wish to keep Chechnya as part of Russia for its natural resources, especially oil. The Caucasus has an abundant amount of oil. Therefore there is no reason why Chechnya should be part of Russia if the Capitalist government hates them.

However, the Chechen Mujahideen have committed very gruesome atrocites towards Russian people, such as the Theater siege in 2002, the suicide bomb in Moscow recently, the bombing of the two passenger airliners, and the hijack of the school. I think it is pointless for Chechens to do these acts of terrorism, because Vladimir Putin has made it quite clear that he would rather throw lives away than to let go of Chechnya. Supporting the Mujahideen in Chechnya would be quite irregular because obviously there is no argument about them being fanatics. I looked on the BBC earlier and Russians seem to have pretty mixed opinions. Many say the Chechens are just terrorists who desire to kill women and children and the Russian authorities are forced to take the measures they took. Others say that these acts of terrorism and results are at the fault of the Russian government. But the bottom line is: Chechnya should have its independence.

[socialistfuture]

my question is - how do they go about it if russia will not listen? what choice is there other than high profile acts of sabotage and other media attention grabing acts.

[Sabocat]

Unfortunately, an Independent Chechnya will offer nothing for the working class there. Chechnya will/would become an Islamic fundamentalist state, and with it, repressive and appalling conditions for women.

If this separatist movement was instigated by the working class, for the working class, I would embrace it whole-heartedly. It just doesn't appear to be that, rather just a hyper nationalistic fundamentalist movement.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately, an Independent Chechnya will offer nothing for the working class there. Chechnya will/would become an Islamic fundamentalist state, and with it, repressive and appalling conditions for women.

If this separatist movement was instigated by the working class, for the working class, I would embrace it whole-heartedly. It just doesn't appear to be that, rather just a hyper nationalistic fundamentalist movement.
Very true! Which is why supporting the Chechen Mujahideen would be irrational. No Mujahideen has ever offered a better world for the workers, and promotes violence, hatred, and abuse towards women. But Chechnya should have its independence for the reasons I previously named, but it should be gained by a Workers movement.

[refuse_resist]

I agree that as long as there are working class people trying to achieve independence for Chechnya then it should be supported to the fullest. The Russian imperialist however will more than likely use all these terror attacks as an excuse to start bombing them and trying to further their military presense in the Chechen region. If that were to happen, than getting an independent state for Chechnya might be a little tough. At this point, it's still tough to make a call.

[apathy maybe]

It has been said, but I will say it again. They should be able to govern themselves. Why do the Russians have any right to this bit of land? When the USSR broke up they tried to go their seperate ways, but bloody Yeltsin didn't want them to.

Bloody oil...

[commiecrusader]

to me it seems like chechnya is for Russia what Ireland was to the UK. i dont see why the fuck the Russian prick leaders are too proud and up emselves to allow a tiny part of their enormous country to govern itself, the same way i dont understand why it took our crappy UK government so long before just allowing the Republic of Ireland to look after its own. What's the point in fighting it it will just lead to needless bloodshed.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Russia needs to eradicate all terrorist undesirables and preserver it's rterritorial sovereignty

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 11:28 PM
Russia needs to eradicate all terrorist undesirables and preserver it's rterritorial sovereignty
Why does it deserve national soverinity?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:00 AM
to me it seems like chechnya is for Russia what Ireland was to the UK. i dont see why the fuck the Russian prick leaders are too proud and up emselves to allow a tiny part of their enormous country to govern itself, the same way i dont understand why it took our crappy UK government so long before just allowing the Republic of Ireland to look after its own. What's the point in fighting it it will just lead to needless bloodshed.
The difference is that in Northern Ireland there are two distinct groups fighting (plus a number of others not). One that is fighting for independence (or dependence on the rest of Ireland) and the other that wants to be part of Britain forever and ever.

In Chechnya there is only one group fighting (besides the Russians). The ones that want independence.

[PRC-UTE]

well the situation is very complex. Many of the people in Chechnya are happy with the partial independence they already had. It's clear that the al-quada groups don't represent the interests or aspirations of the common Chechen.

Their tactics don't make sense in the context of pursuing independence - they're just trying to polarize opinions and hijack the independence movement.

But an independent Chechnya would be in every way better, including for women. Right now they have to see their entire family massacred or face russian rape gangs, so it couldn't be worse for them really.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Let me throw in my penny. The Chechenians I know are all vendors. In Russia, not in Chechnia. It's fine with me, but most of them are involved in selling alcohol to Russians while for some religious reasons they never drink themselves, which is also good. But they even sell the alcohol to Russian children under 16! I am off alcohol, but I see this as direct hazard to the well-being of my country.

Meanwhile, the Chechens who live outside Chechnya are treated as any other human beings by all Russians, while the Russians who had lived in Chechnya before 1991 were either forced to leave their houses, murdered or enslaved. Fuck, they had lived there all their lives!

The Chechen mafia is a very real thing. For instance, in my home town, the Chechens had called the shots for over ten years before some local criminals won the war over them. The Chechens forced the Russians to leave- what if we, Russians decide to force all the Chechens, Azers, Armenians and other Caucasians to go back to their sovereign countries? What if we decide to do it in the same way it was done to Russians in Checnya, Azerbaijian, Tajikistan etc? What if we begin to blast the Chechen airplanes, take their children hostage? Then, of course, we would be "racists". And the Chechens are freedom fighters, quite naturally.

What would you Americans do if, say Alaska wanted to be a separate country, and to achieve this did something similar to Beslan? Would you still be saying such terrorists fight for freedom?

Russia gave Chechnya independence once. Then, in 1999, the Chechens began fighting in Ingushetia, a Russian territory. What did they want then? They even had their own president! Can you explain me this?

Russia can give it the independence again, yes, but why? To be attacked again?
How about Great Britain? Can it give away Scotland to Scots, and Wales to the Welsh?

How about the United States? Will it give their land back to Native Americans? Will they send Afro-Americans back to Africa?

You know what is really funny? It's to meet the people from, say, a sovereign country like Tajikistan, and hear them say that the life was far better in the USSR. I met, for instance, a Tajik journalist who had come to Russia to work as a construction worker (!!!),beacuse the situation in Tajikistan has been worsening since the downfall of the Soviet Union. And not just in Tajikistan, in all the former republics, even in the Baltic "states". These "states" never stop amazing me. Just imagine- they "sought independance" for such a long time just to join another state- EU- after 10 years of existence. What kind of freedom loving is this?

[Raisa]

<<How about the United States? Will it give their land back to Native Americans? Will they send Afro-Americans back to Africa?

This is different because Russia gave independance to many other countries, and not chechnya.

[wet blanket]

they "sought independance" for such a long time just to join another state- EU- after 10 years of existence. What kind of freedom loving is this?

Kind of shows you how shitty the Russian economic/political system has become in recent years when you have countries breaking away to join the EU.

Face it, Russia sucks right now... I wouldn&#39;t want to be a part of it either.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:48 AM
<<How about the United States? Will it give their land back to Native Americans? Will they send Afro-Americans back to Africa?

This is different because Russia gave independance to many other countries, and not chechnya.
It IS different, as the US never gave independence to any part of its empire, and never will. The Iroqui people have their own government, and their own passports, although they technically live in the US - will it give them the independence? These guys are now forced to BUY THEIR OWN LAND from the government and the private businesses.

I am not a die-hard patriot, I know there are lots of bad things going on in Chechnya. But the things in the US are not any better now, with the exception that the Native Americans are scared to death and wouldn&#39;t fight the way the Chechens do - lucky you. This is not to mention the past- at least the Russians never used biological weapons against Chechnya - remember those small pox blankets your ancestors sold to Native Americans?

Now, why did Russia give independence to so many countries and not Chechnya? Because all those countries had this right in the Soviet constitution, and Chechnya didn&#39;t. The borders of these countries were clearly designated, sometimes to disadvantage of Russia (Crimea - the "gift" to Ukraine, Northern Kasakhstan- it was the area where Russian Cossacs had lived for centuries, while the Kasakhs originally didn&#39;t. Why do you think Nazarbayev decided to make Astana the capital of this new country? Because he wants to make this land "legitimate" Kazakhstan&#39;s property.

[wet blanket]

with the exception that the Native Americans are scared to death and wouldn&#39;t fight the way the Chechens do - lucky you.
They&#39;re getting back at the white man with casinos.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 11 2004, 01:11 AM
Kind of shows you how shitty the Russian economic/political system has become in recent years when you have countries breaking away to join the EU.


the Russian economy has become shitty AFTER the USSR breakup, as well as the economy of ALL the other former Soviet Republics. Before that, yes we had several difficult years, but they were much better compared to now.

The fact you were writing about shows that these "independent countries" that had had twenty years of independence in their history before the USSR broke up, were not really seeking independence, if they agree to sell it out after another ten years of "freedom".

Face it, Russia sucks right now... I wouldn&#39;t want to be a part of it either.

Lucky us


Oh, yeah, I forgot something... Capitalists will love it... Djokhar Dudaev, the Soviet general that started the independence campain, explained it by the "illegitimate character of the Russian power". He said that he would come back to the Soviet Union, but never- to Russia.

[kami888]

For all i know Russia is not going to lose any more territory. Enough territory is lost already. I would rather see all the chechens killed (if they really want the independance so much they can&#39;t live without it) than letting chechnya go. If Russia gives independance to chechnya, well, say good-bye to Russia then. "It will be over by christmas". Everyone who supports independance of Chechnya can be assumed that he wants Russia to die. :angry:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2004, 12:28 AM
Russia needs to eradicate all terrorist undesirables and preserver it&#39;s Territorial sovereignty
Preserving a nation&#39;s borders even if it means denying people their right to self-govern - where are your "democratic" ideals now?&#33;

Those terroristic actions flow directly out of the desire to have Independence and self-government.

Once again, you maintain a doublestandard. You believe in "freedom, democracy and liberty", yet you are against Chechen independance. Are you sure that your ideals are not a coverup. Are you lying to yourself?

BTW: Chechen seperation has one big advantage; it shows the vunerability of Imperial Russia. It weakens the Russians state and leadership.

I think that supporting independance of these area&#39;s (Basc, Kurds, Irish etc) is one step closer towards the revolution, since it weakens the power of the state and it&#39;s leadership.

Kami888, this is a board largely filled with Revolutionaries. We want all states to Die&#33; :ph34r:

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 11:28 PM
Russia needs to eradicate all terrorist undesirables and preserver it&#39;s rterritorial sovereignty
What&#39;s funny is that people like this idiot would be hailing and aplauding the Chechen Mujahideen&#39;s terrorism if it were the USSR Chechnya was trying to break away from.

On the other hand there were a lot of Western patriots who hailed the Chechen Mujahideen before September 11th. When the second Russian campaign in Chechnya began in 1999, many right-wing Americans condemned it and the first war (because Clinton did). Bill Clinton cut off economic aid to Russia because of this move by Moscow, along with publicly denouncing Moscow in which case the American patriots continued their old anti-Russian prejudice as if the Russians were still under the Soviet banner. Bill Clinton became very popular among the Muslim population throughout his years in office due to his stance against Russia&#39;s actions in Chechyna, also for the US-led terror campaign against Yugoslavia, and aid to Mujahideens in Bosnia and Kosovo. Until September 11th a lot of Americans and westerners were demanding that the USA and their allies arm the Chechen rebels, send them economic aid, continue to pressure Russia to withdraw all of its forces from Chechnya, and for Chechyna&#39;s independence. In other words, to repeat the same methods of aid the USA and its allied gave the Afghan Mujahideen in the war with the USSR. After September 11th support for the Chechen rebels among the western patriots disappeared along with their gloating of aiding Islamic fanatics against the USSR. Today they embrace the Russian government and all its actions against Chechnya.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:30 PM
Everyone who supports independance of Chechnya can be assumed that he wants Russia to die. :angry:
Wow...I think I got told&#33; .......Sike&#33; :lol:

Its not that I want russia to die. A nation is an abstract concept, but Russians are dying because the government wont just give the Chechens their land already, and the chechens obviously are getting desperate.

What is their buisness with Chechnya any way, that it is worth people&#39;s lives?
The president is not dying, nor are his best friends who are responsible for the occupation of Chechnya. It is innocent people that are paying for their stubborness and their decisions.

Every one who assumes that Chechnya is worth the people&#39;s lives can be assumed that he wants Russia to die :angry:

[redstar2000]

I would rather see all the Chechens killed (if they really want the Independence so much they can&#39;t live without it) than letting Chechnya go.

And that, sweetheart, is more than enough to get you restricted to this forum.


Everyone who supports Independence of Chechnya can be assumed that he wants Russia to die.

If Russia cannot "live" without non-Russian territories and peoples under its rule, then it obviously deserves to die.

The United States certainly does&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:57 AM

If Russia cannot "live" without non-Russian territories and peoples under its rule, then it obviously deserves to die.

The United States certainly does&#33;

:redstar2000:


Russia, by all means, can live without non-Russian territories, and Russia DID live without Chechnya for about three years - so what? Did the terrorist attacks stop then? No? Why not? Why did the independent Chechens begin to kidnap and enslave Russian civilians? Because they wanted their independence so much? They kind of already had it...

I personally have no problem with their independence, BUT&#33; I would advocate the expulsion of those Chechens who now live in Russia and obviously have no problem with the lack of independence of their country. Why? Because the Chechens did the same to the civilian Russian population of the then part of the Soviet Union.

[Raisa]

<<I personally have no problem with their independence, BUT&#33; I would advocate the expulsion of those Chechens who now live in Russia and obviously have no problem with the lack of independence of their country. Why? Because the Chechens did the same to the civilian Russian population of the then part of the Soviet Union. >>

I dont understand. Are you saying that people who are Chechen that want to live in russia should leave because they are Chechen and go to Chechnya?
Expeling people because of their ethnic group is a real nazi thing to do&#33;

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 02:21 AM
<<I personally have no problem with their independence, BUT&#33; I would advocate the expulsion of those Chechens who now live in Russia and obviously have no problem with the lack of independence of their country. Why? Because the Chechens did the same to the civilian Russian population of the then part of the Soviet Union. >>

I dont understand. Are you saying that people who are Chechen that want to live in russia should leave because they are Chechen and go to Chechnya?
Expeling people because of their ethnic group is a real nazi thing to do&#33;
Exactly&#33; And the Chechens did it to Russians, and, well, people of all the other Soviet nationalities when the war started. They expelled them&#33; So, are you ready to support this nazi state of theirs?

[Raisa]

With your logic you are the nazi supporter, not me.
I never said that I supoort Chechnyas "state"
But two wrongs dont make a right.

[inquisitive_socialist]

I think chechnya is to Russia what the basque is to spain. it is simply an arera that they cannot relinquish. Russia cant let go of chechnya because they hold about 1/2 of russias oil fields. Also, chechnya has a history, as not yet said, of being agressive even when independent. However, the chechyen president during their independence was a russian puppet. also, you cant compare chechnya to the native americans in the US. the native americans had absolutely no chance against us in a revolt. they had bows we had guns.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

I think chechnya and russia should do what the IRA are doing and have vote and not use guns to sholve matters and some in this topic say russia should attack chechnya NO russia shouldnt fight fire with fire as i said they should have a vote

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:29 PM
1 Russia cant let go of chechnya because they hold about 1/2 of russias oil fields. 2 Also, chechnya has a history, as not yet said, of being agressive even when independent. 3 However, the chechyen president during their independence was a russian puppet. 4 also, you cant compare chechnya to the native americans in the US. the native americans had absolutely no chance against us in a revolt. they had bows we had guns.
1. Read this: http://www.sibneft.ru/pages.jsp?lang=1&page=2
Can you even find the word Chechnya there?
If Chechnya has the oil, it&#39;s not as much as in Western Siberia, not to mention you remark about 1/2 of Russian oil fields. The oil connection is not about the oil reserves. It&#39;s about the pipeline. Russia built a pipeline through Chechnya back in the Soviet times. This pipeline belongs to Russia, not Chechnya. The oil in it also belongs to Russia, not to Chechnya, as it is transported from other Caucasian regions. During the "independence" years, Chechens have been continually caught red handed at theft of the oil (some of them even built small refineries not far from the pipeline). We don&#39;t live under communism, so, naturally, the Russian high brass didn&#39;t like it. American, or British, or any other country&#39;s brass hats wouldn&#39;t tolerate it, either.

2. I agree with the statement about their history of being aggressive at all times.

3. No, he was not, otherwise it wouldn&#39;t have started all over again. This puppet is hiding from his master now.

4. I can, and you probably will have a problem with them sooner or later. It ain&#39;t over till its over. Some of them have their guns now. It&#39;s because they believe that they can do it without guns that you don&#39;t have a Chechnya at the states now.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:38 PM
A nation is an abstract concept, but Russians are dying because the government wont just give the Chechens their land already, and the chechens obviously are getting desperate.


With your logic you are the nazi supporter, not me.
I never said that I supoort Chechnyas "state"
But two wrongs dont make a right.
Yes, you are right about a nation being an abstract concept, especially when it comes to terrorism, remember the theater siege in Moscow? Four of the hostages were Americans... Oh, yes, and the Beslan children and their parents were not Russians, they were Ossetins

Then, you say you don&#39;t support Chechnya&#39;s state, but before, I assume, you suggested the Russian government give up to the terrorists and give them back their land. How come? Do you think they will live in a stateless country? It&#39;s too early for any form of Communism, especially anarchy. They definitely are not ready for it. Moreover, there isn&#39;t even a political group inside Chechnya that advocates stateless society. Maybe I got you wrong. What DO you support, then?

[Raisa]

<<Then, you say you don&#39;t support Chechnya&#39;s state, but before, I assume, you suggested the Russian government give up to the terrorists and give them back their land. >>

Yes I did. But I didnt say give the "terrorists" back their land. I said give Chechnya to the Chechen people.

<<It&#39;s too early for any form of Communism, especially anarchy. They definitely are not ready for it>>

Any form of communism? What makes chechnya any less ready then anybody else?

<<Maybe I got you wrong. What DO you support, then?>>

I think as long as there are nations, then it makes sense that Chechnya is respected as its own country just like all the other old soviet territories are.

[Guerrilla22]

There is a vast amount of oil in the region, which is a very large reason that the Russian government won&#39;t let Chechenya go. I support a seperate Chechen state, but it would indeed be another theocracy, run by religious zealots.

During the brief period of Chechen independence, the ruling government instatuted law based on islamic law, making such policies as mandatory death sentences for homosexuals. The Chechen people need freedom, but the fundamentalist don&#39;t offer anymore freedom than the Russian Federation does.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:12 PM


1Yes I did. But I didnt say give the "terrorists" back their land. I said give Chechnya to the Chechen people.


2Any form of communism? What makes chechnya any less ready then anybody else?


3I think as long as there are nations, then it makes sense that Chechnya is respected as its own country just like all the other old soviet territories are.
1. Give Chechnya to the Chechen people... why? Because the terrorists launch their attacks on the Russian soil? Is that your logic? That would be giving the land to terrorists. None of the former Soviet republics did what Chechen "freedom fighters" do. After that, I could easily believe Stalin&#39;s claim that Chechens collaborated with the Nazi Germany in WWII.

2. According to Marx, Communism is the final stage of the social development, following (in approximate order) tribal system, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and then communism. Chechens captured and enslaved lots of Russian people when independent, thus at present stage of their development they are finally ready for slavery ( they had a clan, that is, tribal system when they were subdued by the Russian empire). They have yet to pass the stages of feudalism, capitalism and socialism.

3. All the independent former Soviet republics have become the launch site for the American imperialists but Ukraine and Byelorussia. In other words, they are not that independent. The Baltic states are dictated by the EU and NATO, the Caucasian and Central Asian republics are the US puppets in varying degrees. If you add to that the American bases in Canada, South Korea, Japan and Alaska, not to mention Turkey, you will find that Russia is blockaded. You are naive to think that Chechnya will be fully independent. It will depend either on the US or the Arab world, both to the Russian disadvantage. If you want to fight capitalism, strike it to the heart, the US, and leave Russia alone, as it may turn back to socilaism without your help, anyway.

[socialistfuture]

look man russia is not communist now, it is not going to be in the near future. america has basses all over the place near russia from the cold war. some of it is to do with oil now - making sure USA friendly regimes are in place so they get access to the oil - so oil is traded in US dollars - so they are making the money, getting cheap oil - and the US economy and run smoothly and keep then in control.

chechnya is not a terrorist stronghold - it is an area under russian occupation - putin is using the terrorist phrases to fit in with the &#39;war on terrorism&#39; the same war that imprisioned tonnes of people in the states that looked arab - was the excuse for invading Afghanistan andIraq and is removing civil liberties in nations all around the world. don&#39;t fall for the lies.

chechnya if it were to be independent would not be some big obstacle to russia ever becoming communist. if chechnya is ever to be socialist it would have to be by their will. forced communism never lasts - east europe does not want to be puppet governemnts - many of these countries are seeing capitalism is not all it was cracked up to be - that does not mean they liked being occupied by the Solviet Union. Anti capitalist movements are emerging in these countries and socialism is popular in some areas. Again it is up to the people of the areas to emancipate themselves - not some Communist super-giant.

Freedom to Chechnya - Freedom to all people to control their own lives - Death to ALL super powers - Death to yankee imperialism&#33;&#33;&#33;

[socialistfuture]

another thing - Russia under Putin is not very free either. Prehaps autonomy of some other variant would be good for Chechnya - Putin will not listen to what the people there want and will use force instead of words for working things out.

surely what russia is doing is imperialism.

[Osman Ghazi]

1. Give Chechnya to the Chechen people... why? Because the terrorists launch their attacks on the Russian soil?

Yes. Nothing indicates popular anger like extremists.


That would be giving the land to terrorists.

You fool. It&#39;s not about the land. It&#39;s about the power of the Chechen people to determine their own destiny. The terrorists blow themselves up anyways, so it isn;t like they enjoy the fruits of their violence.


None of the former Soviet republics did what Chechen "freedom fighters" do.

The USSR collapsed and 14 peoples were able to escape from bondage in the confusion. The Chechens were not so lucky. Rather than having 14 peoples opposing them, there is now only one. The circumstances were different and so must be their reaction.


They have yet to pass the stages of feudalism, capitalism and socialism.


Islam and Christianity are generally considered to be features of feudalism.


they had a clan, that is, tribal system when they were subdued by the Russian empire

And then they were under the feudal Russians and advanced to feudalism.


you add to that the American bases in Canada, South Korea, Japan and Alaska, not to mention Turkey, you will find that Russia is blockaded.

The cold war is over and so is the enmity between Russia and the US. They are buddy-buddy now. They have a common enemy: their own people&#39;s questioning minds. The solution: a good ol&#39; terrorist hunt&#33;


It will depend either on the US or the Arab world, both to the Russian disadvantage

The Russians don&#39;t even matter in this situation. This is about the Chechens. They&#39;re the ones who have the Russians riding their backs.


If you want to fight capitalism, strike it to the heart, the US, and leave Russia alone, as it may turn back to socilaism without your help, anyway.

Back to socialism? What the fuck are you talking about? Socialism isn&#39;t bread lines Communist Party dictatorship. If you really want to fight capitlaism, you do have to strike it&#39;s heart: every company, every church, every state.

[888Kami]

If Russia cannot "live" without non-Russian territories and peoples under its rule, then it obviously deserves to die.

The United States certainly does&#33;

And that explains why you don&#39;t understand anything.

Chechens are also USED TO BE KNOWN AS RUSSIANS. What is russian as a nationality? Russia has thousands of subnationalities, and chchens are one of those. Now imagine that different states of USA start breaking away. I don&#39;t think it would be United States any more would it? USA is lucky because you exterminated most of the other nations when you came to this land. That&#39;s why noone is trying to break away. Some other countries were not so ruthless when they conquered.

BTW: thanks for banning me. I really did not know that the opinion on human life and the communis ideology might be connected somehow. Or you just ban everyone who says anything you don&#39;t like?

[888Kami]

Kami888, this is a board largely filled with Revolutionaries. We want all states to Die&#33;
Ok, if ALL states will die, then I AGREE&#33; But the problem is, that&#39;s not what is happening right now. <_<

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 14 2004, 12:51 AM

1. Give Chechnya to the Chechen people... why? Because the terrorists launch their attacks on the Russian soil?

1Yes. Nothing indicates popular anger like extremists.


That would be giving the land to terrorists.

2You fool. It&#39;s not about the land. It&#39;s about the power of the Chechen people to determine their own destiny. The terrorists blow themselves up anyways, so it isn;t like they enjoy the fruits of their violence.


None of the former Soviet republics did what Chechen "freedom fighters" do.

3The USSR collapsed and 14 peoples were able to escape from bondage in the confusion. The Chechens were not so lucky. Rather than having 14 peoples opposing them, there is now only one. The circumstances were different and so must be their reaction.


They have yet to pass the stages of feudalism, capitalism and socialism.


4Islam and Christianity are generally considered to be features of feudalism.


they had a clan, that is, tribal system when they were subdued by the Russian empire

5And then they were under the feudal Russians and advanced to feudalism.


you add to that the American bases in Canada, South Korea, Japan and Alaska, not to mention Turkey, you will find that Russia is blockaded.

6The cold war is over and so is the enmity between Russia and the US. They are buddy-buddy now. They have a common enemy: their own people&#39;s questioning minds. The solution: a good ol&#39; terrorist hunt&#33;


It will depend either on the US or the Arab world, both to the Russian disadvantage

7The Russians don&#39;t even matter in this situation. This is about the Chechens. They&#39;re the ones who have the Russians riding their backs.


If you want to fight capitalism, strike it to the heart, the US, and leave Russia alone, as it may turn back to socilaism without your help, anyway.

8Back to socialism? What the fuck are you talking about? Socialism isn&#39;t bread lines Communist Party dictatorship. If you really want to fight capitlaism, you do have to strike it&#39;s heart: every company, every church, every state.
1Popular anger against who? the children of another nationality? Those kids in Beslan even weren&#39;t Russian, well, at least most of them. You know, many Russians (me included) are extremely angry with the Chechens, who live both in Chechnya and Russia. This doesn&#39;t make them (or me) go and kill the Chechen people. Or do you want to say that we need to do the same the Chechens are doing just to show we are angry? Oh, boy, what a reasoning.

2No, I&#39;m not. When Chechens had the power to determine their own destiny, be it before the Russian invasion or during the late 1990s independence, they engaged themselves in slavery, robbing other Caucasian nations, not just Russians, and other mischievous actions. If this is how they "determine their destiny", I don&#39;t want any part of it.

3The USSR didn&#39;t exactly collapse. It was disintegrated by traitors (one of them, Gorbachev, is now teaching at a British university, I wonder, why. Did he flee the country?). The "bondage" included the nations who wanted to be part of the Empire by their own will, such as Ukrainians, Georgians and Khazakhs. The polls show that the majority of the population of former Soviet republics still thinks that life was better in the USSR than in their independent countries. As for 14 nations opposing Russians (there are around 150 nationalities in Russia now, so they would have to oppose them as well, and call imperialists, right?), the public opinion poll that was conducted half a year before the disintegration showed that the vast majority of the people in the USSR voted AGAINST ITS DISINTEGRATION&#33;&#33;&#33;

Also, did you read my post about Jokhar Dudayev? When he proclaimed the independence of Chechnya, he said that he did it because he thought the Russian President and the government were illegitimate, while he also claimed he would willingly come back to the USSR. In other words, he was AGAINST THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE USSR AS WELL&#33;&#33;&#33;

4How about the Arabs having the slaves? How about the Chechens enslaving people of other nations in the end of the XX century? Isn&#39;t that called slavery?

5And then they decided that their destiny was to make slaves of their captives, thus degenerating back to slavery.

6If the cold war is over, why does the US still have the military bases around Russia, even in the former Soviet republics? Russia, for instance, doesn&#39;t have any foreign military bases in the vicinity of the US. Does it show that the US are still planning to crush Russia? Or is it just kind of unilateral ending of cold war on the part of Russia? As for buddy-buddy, no, I don&#39;t think so. The US never think in these terms. They don&#39;t have buddies. They are only concerned with domination, and this is a bad foundation for any kind of partnership, to say nothing about friendship.

7Come to Russia, any part of it, and I will show you who is riding whose backs.

8True, socialism isn&#39;t bread lines Communist Party dictatorship, and I assure you that neither was the USSR. The bread lines occured only once in the history of my country, and that was during the WWII. As for the difficulties in late eighties, it wasn&#39;t about bread. I am pretty confident it was provoked by those who wanted the change for capitalism. As for fighting capitalism, suppose I start fighting capitalism in Russia. Suppose I do my best to disintegrate it. Suppose I succeed. What will happen then? The US will take over, just as it did in Yugoslavia and Iraq. "Divide and rule", this policy is still viable, and that&#39;s what the USA are doing. They divide the countries that lived in peace, by instigation the inter-racial conflicts.

[FundamentallySevere]

The main problem with Chechnya is whether the Chechen really want independence. As it was already stated, most people from former Soviet republics liked living in the USSR better. It was not the peoples who separated; it was the ruling classes.

After Chechnya separated in the middle of 1990&#39;s, they became a fundamentalist state living strictly according to the religious laws, with public shootings and the such. Slavery was also widely accepted; people lived there as slaves for years. Even the poorer Chechen people. Then they attacked Dagestan. Were they still fighting for their freedom? I guess not.

Noone can tell you now whether the Chechen want independence. At least some order is needed for a proper vote. And even then Chechen people are too scared to take a side; they will just do what they are told to, like they did on recent parliamentary election.

The ongoing war can not be considered a war for independence. Most of those "freedom fighters" are not even Chechen. They only want oil.

So, I think war in Chechnya is justified to some extent; but not the way it is fought now. We need a war to bring freedom to Chechnya: freedom to stay with Russia or split. But this war will not bring such freedom. Putin is fascist. His government is fascist. His generals are fascist. Fuck, I hate it.

[FundamentallySevere]

The main problem with Chechnya is whether the Chechen really want independence. As it was already stated, most people from former Soviet republics liked living in the USSR better. It was not the peoples who separated; it was the ruling classes.

After Chechnya separated in the middle of 1990&#39;s, they became a fundamentalist state living strictly according to the religious laws, with public shootings and the such. Slavery was also widely accepted; people lived there as slaves for years. Even the poorer Chechen people. Then they attacked Dagestan. Were they still fighting for their freedom? I guess not.

Noone can tell you now whether the Chechen want independence. At least some order is needed for a proper vote. And even then Chechen people are too scared to take a side; they will just do what they are told to, like they did on recent parliamentary election.

The ongoing war can not be considered a war for independence. Most of those "freedom fighters" are not even Chechen. They only want oil.

So, I think war in Chechnya is justified to some extent; but not the way it is fought now. We need a war to bring freedom to Chechnya: freedom to stay with Russia or split. But this war will not bring such freedom. Putin is fascist. His government is fascist. His generals are fascist. Fuck, I hate it.

[FundamentallySevere]

The main problem with Chechnya is whether the Chechen really want independence. As it was already stated, most people from former Soviet republics liked living in the USSR better. It was not the peoples who separated; it was the ruling classes.

After Chechnya separated in the middle of 1990&#39;s, they became a fundamentalist state living strictly according to the religious laws, with public shootings and the such. Slavery was also widely accepted; people lived there as slaves for years. Even the poorer Chechen people. Then they attacked Dagestan. Were they still fighting for their freedom? I guess not.

Noone can tell you now whether the Chechen want independence. At least some order is needed for a proper vote. And even then Chechen people are too scared to take a side; they will just do what they are told to, like they did on recent parliamentary election.

The ongoing war can not be considered a war for independence. Most of those "freedom fighters" are not even Chechen. They only want oil.

So, I think war in Chechnya is justified to some extent; but not the way it is fought now. We need a war to bring freedom to Chechnya: freedom to stay with Russia or split. But this war will not bring such freedom. Putin is fascist. His government is fascist. His generals are fascist. Fuck, I hate it.

[LuZhiming]

1Popular anger against who? the children of another nationality? Those kids in Beslan even weren&#39;t Russian, well, at least most of them. You know, many Russians (me included) are extremely angry with the Chechens, who live both in Chechnya and Russia. This doesn&#39;t make them (or me) go and kill the Chechen people. Or do you want to say that we need to do the same the Chechens are doing just to show we are angry? Oh, boy, what a reasoning.

"You&#39;re people" aren&#39;t the ones who have been occupied for hundreds of years genius.


2No, I&#39;m not. When Chechens had the power to determine their own destiny, be it before the Russian invasion or during the late 1990s independence, they engaged themselves in slavery, robbing other Caucasian nations, not just Russians, and other mischievous actions. If this is how they "determine their destiny", I don&#39;t want any part of it.

This is like arguing that the U.S.&#39; overthrowing of Norodom Sihanouk and bombing of Cambodia was neccessary because afterwards the Cambodians had Pol Pot. You fail to see that Russia&#39;s interventions only excaberate(and in some cases cause) these things. Besides, Chechnya had almost complete unemployment at that time, any nation like that is going to have tons of robbery and bandity at the least(slavery isn&#39;t unlikely either), and as anyone knows, banditry were going on all over Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and still does today. And I believe there was slavery in Chechnya before its declaring of independence. This is just a lame excuse.


3The USSR didn&#39;t exactly collapse. It was disintegrated by traitors (one of them, Gorbachev, is now teaching at a British university, I wonder, why. Did he flee the country?). The "bondage" included the nations who wanted to be part of the Empire by their own will, such as Ukrainians, Georgians and Khazakhs. The polls show that the majority of the population of former Soviet republics still thinks that life was better in the USSR than in their independent countries. As for 14 nations opposing Russians (there are around 150 nationalities in Russia now, so they would have to oppose them as well, and call imperialists, right?), the public opinion poll that was conducted half a year before the disintegration showed that the vast majority of the people in the USSR voted AGAINST ITS DISINTEGRATION&#33;&#33;&#33;

Which polls are you referring to?


To inquire on a point you brought up earlier, what Chechen 1999 fighting in Ingushetia are you referring to?

[LuZhiming]

1Popular anger against who? the children of another nationality? Those kids in Beslan even weren&#39;t Russian, well, at least most of them. You know, many Russians (me included) are extremely angry with the Chechens, who live both in Chechnya and Russia. This doesn&#39;t make them (or me) go and kill the Chechen people. Or do you want to say that we need to do the same the Chechens are doing just to show we are angry? Oh, boy, what a reasoning.

"You&#39;re people" aren&#39;t the ones who have been occupied for hundreds of years genius.


2No, I&#39;m not. When Chechens had the power to determine their own destiny, be it before the Russian invasion or during the late 1990s independence, they engaged themselves in slavery, robbing other Caucasian nations, not just Russians, and other mischievous actions. If this is how they "determine their destiny", I don&#39;t want any part of it.

This is like arguing that the U.S.&#39; overthrowing of Norodom Sihanouk and bombing of Cambodia was neccessary because afterwards the Cambodians had Pol Pot. You fail to see that Russia&#39;s interventions only excaberate(and in some cases cause) these things. Besides, Chechnya had almost complete unemployment at that time, any nation like that is going to have tons of robbery and bandity at the least(slavery isn&#39;t unlikely either), and as anyone knows, banditry were going on all over Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and still does today. And I believe there was slavery in Chechnya before its declaring of independence. This is just a lame excuse.


3The USSR didn&#39;t exactly collapse. It was disintegrated by traitors (one of them, Gorbachev, is now teaching at a British university, I wonder, why. Did he flee the country?). The "bondage" included the nations who wanted to be part of the Empire by their own will, such as Ukrainians, Georgians and Khazakhs. The polls show that the majority of the population of former Soviet republics still thinks that life was better in the USSR than in their independent countries. As for 14 nations opposing Russians (there are around 150 nationalities in Russia now, so they would have to oppose them as well, and call imperialists, right?), the public opinion poll that was conducted half a year before the disintegration showed that the vast majority of the people in the USSR voted AGAINST ITS DISINTEGRATION&#33;&#33;&#33;

Which polls are you referring to?


To inquire on a point you brought up earlier, what Chechen 1999 fighting in Ingushetia are you referring to?

[LuZhiming]

1Popular anger against who? the children of another nationality? Those kids in Beslan even weren&#39;t Russian, well, at least most of them. You know, many Russians (me included) are extremely angry with the Chechens, who live both in Chechnya and Russia. This doesn&#39;t make them (or me) go and kill the Chechen people. Or do you want to say that we need to do the same the Chechens are doing just to show we are angry? Oh, boy, what a reasoning.

"You&#39;re people" aren&#39;t the ones who have been occupied for hundreds of years genius.


2No, I&#39;m not. When Chechens had the power to determine their own destiny, be it before the Russian invasion or during the late 1990s independence, they engaged themselves in slavery, robbing other Caucasian nations, not just Russians, and other mischievous actions. If this is how they "determine their destiny", I don&#39;t want any part of it.

This is like arguing that the U.S.&#39; overthrowing of Norodom Sihanouk and bombing of Cambodia was neccessary because afterwards the Cambodians had Pol Pot. You fail to see that Russia&#39;s interventions only excaberate(and in some cases cause) these things. Besides, Chechnya had almost complete unemployment at that time, any nation like that is going to have tons of robbery and bandity at the least(slavery isn&#39;t unlikely either), and as anyone knows, banditry were going on all over Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and still does today. And I believe there was slavery in Chechnya before its declaring of independence. This is just a lame excuse.


3The USSR didn&#39;t exactly collapse. It was disintegrated by traitors (one of them, Gorbachev, is now teaching at a British university, I wonder, why. Did he flee the country?). The "bondage" included the nations who wanted to be part of the Empire by their own will, such as Ukrainians, Georgians and Khazakhs. The polls show that the majority of the population of former Soviet republics still thinks that life was better in the USSR than in their independent countries. As for 14 nations opposing Russians (there are around 150 nationalities in Russia now, so they would have to oppose them as well, and call imperialists, right?), the public opinion poll that was conducted half a year before the disintegration showed that the vast majority of the people in the USSR voted AGAINST ITS DISINTEGRATION&#33;&#33;&#33;

Which polls are you referring to?


To inquire on a point you brought up earlier, what Chechen 1999 fighting in Ingushetia are you referring to?

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:00 AM

"You&#39;re people" aren&#39;t the ones who have been occupied for hundreds of years genius.



This is like arguing that the U.S.&#39; overthrowing of Norodom Sihanouk and bombing of Cambodia was neccessary because afterwards the Cambodians had Pol Pot. You fail to see that Russia&#39;s interventions only excaberate(and in some cases cause) these things. Besides, Chechnya had almost complete unemployment at that time, any nation like that is going to have tons of robbery and bandity at the least(slavery isn&#39;t unlikely either), and as anyone knows, banditry were going on all over Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and still does today. And I believe there was slavery in Chechnya before its declaring of independence. This is just a lame excuse.



Which polls are you referring to?


To inquire on a point you brought up earlier, what Chechen 1999 fighting in Ingushetia are you referring to?
There are more than a hundred nations in Russia, who have been "occupied", and Chechens seem to be the only nation engaging in terrorism. Why is that? Many of the other peoples have been occupied longer than Chechens... Some of them, unlike Chechens, had even had their own states by the time of their occupation.

One more point: look at who were the rulers of Russia for centuries? First, vikings, then, the Romanovs, who were, as you know, German; then Lenin, who was a cross-breed German, Jew and Kalmyk. Stalin, accused of the Chechen&#39;s exile, was a Georgian, i.e. a Caucasian. Khrushev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were Ukrainians. I am unsure about Yeltsin nationality, as well as Putin&#39;s, though...

This means we, Russians, have been occupied for about 700 years, right?

As for slavery, do you really think unemployment is a good excuse for it? Was American slavery caused by unemployment as well? In ancient Rome, that was also the case, right? This is just ridiculous. Besides, this unemployment was caused by their leaders. When Chechnya was part of the Soviet Union, there was no unemployment, just like all over the Union. These little pleasures of capitalism started only after its disintegration. As for your belief there was slavery there before its independence, I&#39;m afraid you&#39;ll have to prove it, as I hold a totally different belief.

The polls... There was one in the spring of 1991, which showed that the vast majority of the Soviet people were explicitly AGAINST its disintegration. As for the recent polls, showing that people in the former USSR still think life was better then, I&#39;ll try to provide you with relevant English links, if I can find them. I&#39;m pretty sure I can find the info in Russian, though... So if you think you can get someone to translate the stuff, I&#39;ll post here some...

As for the 1999 Chechen fighting, I must have been typing too fast to notice the mistake then. Of course it was Dagestan, not Ingushetia.

P.S. I have a feeling I posted this before, but for some reason, my post isn&#39;t there... Strange.

[Osman Ghazi]

1Popular anger against who? the children of another nationality? Those kids in Beslan even weren&#39;t Russian, well, at least most of them.

To be fair, it was the Russians who set off the bomb, but I have no doubt that the Chechens would have set it off if they wanted to. The point is, the children were not the target of the attack. The point was to show that more bloodshed will ensue unless they abandon their occupation.


You know, many Russians (me included) are extremely angry with the Chechens, who live both in Chechnya and Russia. This doesn&#39;t make them (or me) go and kill the Chechen people. Or do you want to say that we need to do the same the Chechens are doing just to show we are angry? Oh, boy, what a reasoning.

Funny. Here I thought that Putin was a &#39;hard-liner&#39; who was going to &#39;show those Chechen s&#39;. You personnally didn&#39;t go. The point is, you elected (as if you had achoice, really) a hardline leader who would send in the Russian military. Well, there is no Chechen military. So religous zealots took up the post.


2No, I&#39;m not. When Chechens had the power to determine their own destiny, be it before the Russian invasion or during the late 1990s independence, they engaged themselves in slavery, robbing other Caucasian nations, not just Russians, and other mischievous actions. If this is how they "determine their destiny", I don&#39;t want any part of it.


Yes, that is what most poverty-stricken nations do. But...isn&#39;t that what they&#39;re doing right now?


3The USSR didn&#39;t exactly collapse. It was disintegrated by traitors (one of them, Gorbachev, is now teaching at a British university, I wonder, why. Did he flee the country?). The " " included the nations who wanted to be part of the Empire by their own will, such as Ukrainians, Georgians and Khazakhs. The polls show that the majority of the population of former Soviet republics still thinks that life was better in the USSR than in their independent countries. As for 14 nations opposing Russians (there are around 150 nationalities in Russia now, so they would have to oppose them as well, and call imperialists, right?), the public opinion poll that was conducted half a year before the disintegration showed that the vast majority of the people in the USSR voted AGAINST ITS DISINTEGRATION&#33;&#33;&#33;


Economically, I&#39;m sure most people were better off under the Soviet Union, but they collapsed economically. So whether they would rather be under it or not is a moot point. Those nations are far better off politically then they were under the USSR.


4How about the Arabs having the slaves? How about the Chechens enslaving people of other nations in the end of the XX century? Isn&#39;t that called slavery?


Yes, the Americans also had slaves, as late as 1861. Are you telling me that America at that time was at the same level of development as Rome? With its gatling guns, repeater rifles, and railroads, America was equivalent to Rome? No, obviously not. You see, you are seizing on one aspect and trying to say that it represents that country. It doesn&#39;t. By that logic, I could say "Oh, they have capital too, so they must be capitalist."


6If the cold war is over, why does the US still have the military bases around Russia, even in the former Soviet republics? Russia, for instance, doesn&#39;t have any foreign military bases in the vicinity of the US. Does it show that the US are still planning to crush Russia? Or is it just kind of unilateral ending of cold war on the part of Russia? As for buddy-buddy, no, I don&#39;t think so. The US never think in these terms. They don&#39;t have buddies. They are only concerned with domination, and this is a bad foundation for any kind of partnership, to say nothing about friendship.

While the USSR could compete with the US, Russia can only hope to be their lapdogs, and that relationship is always... uneven. How far the mighty have fallen.


8True, socialism isn&#39;t bread lines Communist Party dictatorship, and I assure you that neither was the USSR. The bread lines occured only once in the history of my country, and that was during the WWII. As for the difficulties in late eighties, it wasn&#39;t about bread. I am pretty confident it was provoked by those who wanted the change for capitalism. As for fighting capitalism, suppose I start fighting capitalism in Russia. Suppose I do my best to disintegrate it. Suppose I succeed. What will happen then? The US will take over, just as it did in Yugoslavia and Iraq. "Divide and rule", this policy is still viable, and that&#39;s what the USA are doing. They divide the countries that lived in peace, by instigation the inter-racial conflicts.

Capitalism is a global economic system. It must be destroyed globally.


One more point: look at who were the rulers of Russia for centuries? First, vikings, then, the Romanovs, who were, as you know, German; then Lenin, who was a cross-breed German, Jew and Kalmyk. Stalin, accused of the Chechen&#39;s exile, was a Georgian, i.e. a Caucasian. Khrushev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were Ukrainians. I am unsure about Yeltsin nationality, as well as Putin&#39;s, though...

This means we, Russians, have been occupied for about 700 years, right?


Sonny, if you think nations are wielded by one single man, you have a whole lot to learn.


then, the Romanovs, who were, as you know, German
Really, what language did they speak?


There are more than a hundred nations in Russia, who have been "occupied", and Chechens seem to be the only nation engaging in terrorism. Why is that?

Because they are more determined than all the rest? How should I know? But if they are willing to kill people for it, they must be serious about it, right?

[PRC-UTE]

There are more than a hundred nations in Russia, who have been "occupied", and Chechens seem to be the only nation engaging in terrorism. Why is that? Many of the other peoples have been occupied longer than Chechens... Some of them, unlike Chechens, had even had their own states by the time of their occupation.

When the neoliberal economic reforms started in the Russian empire (perastroika - sorry that&#39;s probably mis-spelled, m8s) the Chechens thought they would be granted an independent republic.

The Russians responded with force. The Chechen seperatists genuinely believed the west would come to their aid but that never materialised. So the chechens turned to the only folks who seemed to care, the wahabbists&#33; :ph34r:

But this goes back much further than that - Stalin reportedly killed half of the country&#39;s population.

More importantly I don&#39;t know why you&#39;d consider the Chechens to be terrorists when whatever crimes they&#39;ve commited have been nothing compared to Mother Russia&#39;s rape gangs, genocide, common place torture methods, etc.

Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the Russians so who is the real terrorist?


One more point: look at who were the rulers of Russia for centuries? First, vikings, then, the Romanovs, who were, as you know, German; then Lenin, who was a cross-breed German, Jew and Kalmyk. Stalin, accused of the Chechen&#39;s exile, was a Georgian, i.e. a Caucasian. Khrushev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were Ukrainians. I am unsure about Yeltsin nationality, as well as Putin&#39;s, though...

This means we, Russians, have been occupied for about 700 years, right?

No. Some have used the same argument about the British crown. They&#39;ve had Scottish and Welsh kings and queens, so does that mean Scotland and Wales have occupied England? No, the English have absorbed their neighbors ruling classes, who in turn accepted the parent country&#39;s values, language and religion.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 07:35 PM



































To be fair, it was the Russians who set off the bomb, but I have no doubt that the Chechens would have set it off if they wanted to. The point is, the children were not the target of the attack. The point was to show that more bloodshed will ensue unless they abandon their occupation.

Thanks for the feedback. It was the Russians? I guess I missed that news, or it was absent from the Russian news sourses. Could you give me a link?

The children were not the target of the attack? Who was then? Putin? He was nowhere near... Russian soldiers? Why didn&#39;t the terroristscapture them? Because kids are an easy target, they can&#39;t strike back. As for the bloodshed... Yeah, I guess the Russian military would be angry by now... Was that the target?

Funny. Here I thought that Putin was a &#39;hard-liner&#39; who was going to &#39;show those Chechen s&#39;. You personnally didn&#39;t go. The point is, you elected (as if you had achoice, really) a hardline leader who would send in the Russian military. Well, there is no Chechen military. So religous zealots took up the post.

I personally didn&#39;t go, but I could easily do some harm to those Chechens who now live on Russian soil. Why don&#39;t we, Russians, do it? I didn&#39;t elect Putin, it was my mother:) She didn&#39;t vote for him in the second elections, tthough...

Yes, that is what most poverty-stricken nations do. But...isn&#39;t that what they&#39;re doing right now?

Again, Russia is poverty-stricken. Not enough to boost terrorism? That&#39;s an interesting dillemma here by the way... What if Russia gives them their independence? They will go on with their slavery, terrorism and banditry. What if it doesn&#39;t? They will do the same. Doesn&#39;t it prove them as die-hard criminals?

Economically, I&#39;m sure most people were better off under the Soviet Union, but they collapsed economically. So whether they would rather be under it or not is a moot point. Those nations are far better off politically then they were under the USSR.

you probably mean the elits of those nations... Which nations are far better off politically now? Russia? Ukraine? Byelorussia? Kazakhstan? Kyrgyzstan? Uzbekistan? TAJIKISTAN? Moldova? Which? Those fully-dependent-on-the EU Baltic states?


Yes, the Americans also had slaves, as late as 1861. Are you telling me that America at that time was at the same level of development as Rome? With its gatling guns, repeater rifles, and railroads, America was equivalent to Rome? No, obviously not. You see, you are seizing on one aspect and trying to say that it represents that country. It doesn&#39;t. By that logic, I could say "Oh, they have capital too, so they must be capitalist."

That&#39;s the point. America wasn&#39;t poverty-stricken, yet it still had slavery (if we speak of political slavery, i.e. voting rights and rights in general, it stayed as racist as Chechnya until the mid-XX century). This basically means that bad economic situation isn&#39;t the only reason for slavery. Capital is, by all means, a prerequizite of capitalism. Even ancient nations were, in a sense, capitalist- they had money and markets, money+market=primitive capitalism. I guess we should distinguish between an economical model and social system.

Sonny, if you think nations are wielded by one single man, you have a whole lot to learn.

Daddy? Daddy? Is that really you? I thought you were back in Siberia studying English... Could it really be you? The nations are not wielded by one single man, but they can be ruled by one single man- the case with Russia- all its nations have always been ruled by one man, including Russians and Chechens.

Really, what language did they speak?

As for the csars, they often spoke a better French and German than Russian. Even the wife of the last csar reputedly spoke Russian with a heavy German accent. Lenin... Yes, he spoke Russian as the first language. Does it make him Russian? Stalin spoke Russian with a very heavy Georgian accent, just like Krushev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, who also spoke with an accent- in their cases it was Ukrainian.

Because they are more determined than all the rest? How should I know? But if they are willing to kill people for it, they must be serious about it, right?

No, because Yeltsin committed a fatal blunder- he withdrew the troops from the republic, living all the weapons and stuff with Dudayev. Yeltsin is a capitalist idiot, as well as Putin.

While the USSR could compete with the US, Russia can only hope to be their lapdogs, and that relationship is always... uneven. How far the mighty have fallen.

That&#39;s the point. Russia, in fact, will never want to be a lapdog, it&#39;s not Britain. But Russia&#39;s situation, as well as the situation of all the other former Soviet republics, is much worse than it could ever be with the Union. That&#39;s why nearly all the former republics have the US military bases on their soil- they are nothing without each other and Russia. They do what they are told to do.

Capitalism is a global economic system. It must be destroyed globally.

You know, living in a country that has experienced too much of destruction over its history, I have a suggestion. Why not transform it? Why not take the best of it into Socialism, with the best of socialism taken to Communism? Do you know why the USSR failed to be truely socialist, as many on this board believe? Because THE PEOPLE were not ready.

[inquisitive_socialist]

dont you think its odd the only reports coming regularly out of chechnya are from russian media which is all state controlled now? i mena, how much do we really know? andyour right i misqouted my source its a pipeline not a oil field. I want to know how much of the news coming out of chechnya is accurate, or is this like the american reporting during the vietnam war? you never heard about what really happened until long afterwards.

[inquisitive_socialist]

and not yet, that comment about the people not being ready is complete crap. if they werent ready what would you call the Russian Revolution. maybe you need to learn alittle national history or something but id say the people were more than ready for a change from the czarist excesses.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:07 PM

1When the neoliberal economic reforms started in the Russian empire (perastroika - sorry that&#39;s probably mis-spelled, m8s) the Chechens thought they would be granted an independent republic.

2The Russians responded with force. The Chechen seperatists genuinely believed the west would come to their aid but that never materialised. So the chechens turned to the only folks who seemed to care, the wahabbists&#33; :ph34r:

3But this goes back much further than that - Stalin reportedly killed half of the country&#39;s population.

4More importantly I don&#39;t know why you&#39;d consider the Chechens to be terrorists when whatever crimes they&#39;ve commited have been nothing compared to Mother Russia&#39;s rape gangs, genocide, common place torture methods, etc.

5Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the Russians so who is the real terrorist?



6No. Some have used the same argument about the British crown. They&#39;ve had Scottish and Welsh kings and queens, so does that mean Scotland and Wales have occupied England? No, the English have absorbed their neighbors ruling classes, who in turn accepted the parent country&#39;s values, language and religion.
1. It really was Dudayev, not the Chechens. The "Russian empire" was a union of Soviet Republics, ruled, besides the chairmen, by the Supreme Soviet, consisting of the leaders of most of the republics (Shevardnadze, the former President of independent Georgia, who was explicitely anti-Russian, used to be the Foreign Minister, Dudayev used to be the Soviet Air-force General, i.e. part of the system, so don&#39;t tell me again that it was Russians who dominated everyone. WASPs in the US are dominating the big politics much more that the Russians in the USSR). Dudayev told Yeltsin he WOULD COME BACK TO THE USSR not to Russia, as he THOUGHT THAT THE DISINTEGRATION WAS ILLEGAL&#33; I agree with him here- it WAS illegal.

2. To what? Dudayev dissolved the popularly- elected Parliament, just like Yelstin later, which makes them equally fucked-up idiots. He persecuted the members of the security forces, militia, forced many non-Chechens leave (and I don&#39;t talk of just Russians). the Chechens turned to the only folks who seemed to pay. Are you from the West? If yes, then, sorry, but I have to tell you this... Fuck off, OK? What business do you have with Russia? Why do you all want it destroyed, the commies and the cappies alike? I might be paranoid, of course, but this paranoia has a lot to do with the history. Sorry to be rude, folks.

3. Links... Documents... Do you know that the vast part of their population has left Chechnya since their independence? Absolute majority came to Russia... Is Russia THAT BAD? WHy do they keep coming here? Because the folks that come here want peace rather than independence.

4. Links... Documents...

5. Links... Documents... I&#39;d really like to see them. I mean it.

6. I know it&#39;s absurd, but so are the Chechenian claims. Look at the history of the revolution, when Chechnia became part of the USSR. Was it only Russians who did the fightings? How about the Chechenian communists? How about other Caucasian nationalities who had their communists fighting in Chechnia? It was about Communism vs Capitalism/monarchism, not Russians vs Chechens, or any other nation, for that matter. Chechnya in the Soviet Union was ruled by Chechnian Communists, not by Russians.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:09 PM
and not yet, that comment about the people not being ready is complete crap. if they werent ready what would you call the Russian Revolution. maybe you need to learn alittle national history or something but id say the people were more than ready for a change from the czarist excesses.
Do you know that the ultimate goal was Communism then? Was it achieved? Why? Do you know that the Communists thought of Russia as the starting point for the World Revolution? Was that achieved? Why? Because people in other countries weren&#39;t ready? Yes, the Russian revolution was caused by the objective needs and subjective desires for a change. But events like "raskulachivaniye"- attacks on the Kulaks- were caused by the kulaks being not ready for communism.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:06 PM
dont you think its odd the only reports coming regularly out of chechnya are from russian media which is all state controlled now? i mena, how much do we really know? andyour right i misqouted my source its a pipeline not a oil field. I want to know how much of the news coming out of chechnya is accurate, or is this like the american reporting during the vietnam war? you never heard about what really happened until long afterwards.
The media situation in Russia is very bad. I know that. Yet, if you are not sure about how much you know, why do some guys make the claims about hundreds of thousands killed by the Russian troops? There used to be international journalists in Chechnya. I guess, their number has shrunk since the Chechens beheaded five of them some years ago... I honestly don&#39;t think Russian troops could ever do something like that...

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Not Yet a Commie+Posted on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM--> (Not Yet a Commie &#064; Posted on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM)There are more than a hundred nations in Russia, who have been "occupied", and Chechens seem to be the only nation engaging in terrorism. Why is that? Many of the other peoples have been occupied longer than Chechens... Some of them, unlike Chechens, had even had their own states by the time of their occupation. [/b]

Chechens haven&#39;t been the only ones engaging in terrorism. As you know, various non-Chechen ethnic groups in Dagestan have been battling Russia for a long time. But this is far beyond the point, sure, there are plenty of Turkic, Siberian, and other ethnic groups in Russia who have not been involved in terrorism, but that doesn&#39;t prove Chechens must have some other reason for being involved in terrorism. Also note that Chechens are largely a majority in their areas(Chechnya) while most ethnic minorities in Russia are minorities in their own lands, with ethnic Russians usually being a majority population. This ethnic composition gives Chechens an advantage and therefore makes them more likely to launch revolts. Also note that Chechnya is incredibly poor, even in comparison to some of the other horrible places in Russia.


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
One more point: look at who were the rulers of Russia for centuries? First, vikings, then, the Romanovs, who were, as you know, German; then Lenin, who was a cross-breed German, Jew and Kalmyk. Stalin, accused of the Chechen&#39;s exile, was a Georgian, i.e. a Caucasian. Khrushev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were Ukrainians. I am unsure about Yeltsin nationality, as well as Putin&#39;s, though...

This means we, Russians, have been occupied for about 700 years, right?

First off, you can&#39;t count Vikings as occupiers of peoples who are now known as Russians, the Vikings are the ones who created Russia. The only peoples the Vikings could be considered occupiers of would be non-Slavic peoples, like the Indo-Iranian Scythians and the Indo-Iranian Sarmatians(To my knowledge even the Germanic Goths, (probably)Turkic/Mongol Huns, Turkic Avars, Turkic Bulgars, and Turkic Khazars settled in Russia before the Eastern Slavs did). These people were before modern day Russians, so the Vikings can&#39;t count for your point.

In regards to the Romanovs, they started with Tzar Michael Romanov, who ended the rule of pretenders and was chosen in a zemsky sobor. Besides, his father was the one who lead Russian forces to battle the Polish invaders. This is simply not occupation. The Romanovs may not have been ethnic Russians, but they ruled the Russians with as much consent as leaders had in those days, and ruled as Russians.

In the case of Lenin, again it&#39;s wrong to call this occupation. Lenin&#39;s nationality was Russian, as he said so. He wasn&#39;t a Zionist, he bitterly hated the Nationalist Germans under Kaiser Wilhelm, and he wasn&#39;t a Kalmyk culturally at all. He wasn&#39;t serving anyother nation, but serving as a Russian. Being a different ethnicity is different than nationality.

Josef Stalin&#39;s ethnicity is irrelevant too, Georgia was actually occupied by Russia at the time, so according to the Soviet Union&#39;s view of the world Stalin was merely serving as a Soviet citizen. The same is true of the Ukrainians Khruschev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev.


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
As for slavery, do you really think unemployment is a good excuse for it? Was American slavery caused by unemployment as well? In ancient Rome, that was also the case, right? This is just ridiculous.

You completely missed the point. The point wasn&#39;t that unemployment causes slavery. It was that the slavery in this case was a direct result of the unemployment. That&#39;s the sort of thing that happens in an unstable and backwards place like Chechnya in times like those. This is not excusing it, but merely pointing out the reason. Rome and the United States are different, they are one people enslaving and conquering(or supporting or being involved in conquering) another. Chechnya is a bit more complicated, it was mostly internal slavery, although we both know there were plenty of kidnappings by Chechens of foreigners, but this was completely small-scale, and still I think a result of unemployment. You&#39;re comparison of Chechnya to ancient Rome or the United States during its slavery days is a false and misleading one, it&#39;s like comparing Chechnya to ancient China. But for the reasons above, that is false, it would be the Xiong-Nu and later the Huns in Mongolia who would be the better comparison. Chinese Emperors and leaders(or people used by the leaders) used slavery on a massive scale to conquer others, actions which had nothing to do with social conditions of Chinese peasents, but the (usually)disunited, poorer Xiong-Nu tribesmen raided Chinese lands for small gain, interestingly these sort of attacks by Xiong-Nu had more concern for the people of those lands, that&#39;s why many of the soldiers raided these lands to survive. It would be the Xiong-Nu with which a comparison to Chechens would be appropriate, not the Chinese. Or to take up your example, for the exact same reasons, the comparison of the United States and Chechnya is false. The comparison you would be looking for would be Black African traders in Africa, or perhaps North African pirates. Not the Americans. The same thing with the Vikings, they actually began their raids(terrorism) out of desperation, they were literally starving to death. So again, the comparison of Chechnya to England would be false, it would be Chechnya to the Scandinavian Vikings. You can pick examples out of your head, but I think you get it by now.


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
Besides, this unemployment was caused by their leaders. When Chechnya was part of the Soviet Union, there was no unemployment, just like all over the Union.

I won&#39;t bother with your laughable claim of there being no unemployment all over the Soviet Union, but it is necessary to point out how the state of unemployment in Chechnya during the time of the Soviet Union is irrelevant. When the Soviet Union existed, most Chechens were in Central Asia or Siberia, where there was virtually no employment(Unless you count death camps as "employment), so I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re trying to point out by bringing up the land of Chechnya here.


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
These little pleasures of capitalism started only after its disintegration.

You seem to have contradicted yourself. What caused unemployment, Capitalism or Chechen leaders?


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
As for your belief there was slavery there before its independence, I&#39;m afraid you&#39;ll have to prove it, as I hold a totally different belief.

It seems to be a pretty well-known fact. Remember the famous story that came out about a year ago about some guy(they apparently never released his name) born in 1954 and had been in slavery for 11 years, who was freed from slavery in the Chechen village of Chiri-Yurt? In case you forget, the reports were that he was enslaved in 1990, that was when the Soviet Union still had control of Chechnya(The Soviet Union disentigrated in 1991 and Dzhokhar Dudayev did not declare independence until that time). There are other such stories, but I don&#39;t see how one can &#39;prove&#39; this.

Another point on this, slavery has been going on all over Russia and other Eastern European states for a while now, so I don&#39;t see why you can use this as an excused for militarism against Chechnya.


Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
The polls... There was one in the spring of 1991, which showed that the vast majority of the Soviet people were explicitly AGAINST its disintegration. As for the recent polls, showing that people in the former USSR still think life was better then, I&#39;ll try to provide you with relevant English links, if I can find them. I&#39;m pretty sure I can find the info in Russian, though... So if you think you can get someone to translate the stuff, I&#39;ll post here some...

I&#39;m not denying that such polls exist, but rather looking for some reason which suggests credibility. The thing is, there are a lot of polls on this, and they seem to have gotten opposite results. For this reason, I cannot trust an particular poll.


Not Yet a [email protected] on Sep 30 2004, 02:19 PM
As for the 1999 Chechen fighting, I must have been typing too fast to notice the mistake then. Of course it was Dagestan, not Ingushetia.

Ok, that&#39;s what I thought. Here I don&#39;t think you have any arguement, because it was the Russians who first broke the peace treaty with Chechnya by destroying a Chechen border post, and then on July 29, 1999 capturing an 800-meter road section. The Chechens shot into Russian positions after this. Kebedov and Hachilayev, who were Dagestanis, tried to return from exile to Dagestan, but there they fought with Dagestani security forces. Russia seized upon this opportunity to spread lies about a "Chechen invasion." Then a force made up of roughly 1,000 men, with maybe 300 Chechens under Basayev(a man who was opposed greatly by the Chechen President) and Khattab(a Jordanian) went into Dagestan apparently to help the Dagestani forces of Kebedov and Hachilayev as well as in response to the Russian bombing of civillians in Karamakhi and Chabanmakhi. Furthermore, Maskhadov had already tried to negotiate joint efforts with Russia on getting rid of crime as well as battling what he called terrorists. But Russia had always refused this, and the reason is because they wanted instead to have an excuse to invade Chechnya, which they wished to attack. Immediately after Basayev&#39;s attack against Russia, Maskhadov condemned it and held a demonstration of 5,000 people against the action. And soon after, Sergei Stepashin was sacked for the terrorist Vladimir Putin, and the latter declared all treaties with Chechnya null, and began a racist campaign of violence against peoples of Caucasian appearances. Here you are totally wrong, the Russians were the first to attack, the Dagestanis were the ones who excaberated the situation, and the Russians took advantage of it. The Chechen role was minimal, but Russia did not care about this.

[Osman Ghazi]

Thanks for the feedback. It was the Russians? I guess I missed that news, or it was absent from the Russian news sourses. Could you give me a link?


I apologize, that is what I had heard, but according to BBC, they still do not know exactly what happened. Apperently, though, one of the bombs strapped to the basketball nets fell and detonated, causing a panic.


The children were not the target of the attack? Who was then?

There were more than 1200 people held captive. Most were actually relatives of the children. But that doesn&#39;t matter. Killing a child is no worse and no better than killing an adult. I just don&#39;t like all this talk of &#39;slaughtering children&#39;. Generally, people don&#39;t talk like that unless they are trying to hide the facts.


you probably mean the elits of those nations... Which nations are far better off politically now? Those fully-dependent-on-the EU Baltic states?


Actually, the Baltic states in particular are beginning to advance to the modern stages of capitalism, whereas Russia is slipping.


Daddy? Daddy? Is that really you? I thought you were back in Siberia studying English... Could it really be you? The nations are not wielded by one single man, but they can be ruled by one single man- the case with Russia- all its nations have always been ruled by one man, including Russians and Chechens.


No, you see, no matter what, that one person on the top depends on the support of the people who fulfill his bidding. Whether it be .1%, 1%, or 10%, they need some measure of support. And the people who supported them were Great Russian. The Ruling class were Great Russian.


No, because Yeltsin committed a fatal blunder- he withdrew the troops from the republic, living all the weapons and stuff with Dudayev. Yeltsin is a capitalist idiot, as well as Putin.


Actually, Yeltsin&#39;s major blunder was getting his ass kicked by the Chechen rebels and having to cave in to their demands for autonomy. The Russian military lost, they were in no position to occupy Chechnya.


That&#39;s the point. Russia, in fact, will never want to be a lapdog, it&#39;s not Britain.

Well, the Russian people don&#39;t really have a choice, they aren&#39;t in control of their own destiny. Their ruling class knows that they can gain wealth by selling out to the U&#036;. Sorry, but those are the breaks.

Also, consider this: maybe, just maybe, the Chechens oure hatred of Russia stems from the third act of the Chechen conflict. In 1999, the Russians again invaded Chechnya. TRhis time, they used long range artillery and rocketry to maximize enemy losses while minimizing their own.

Basically, they leveled Grozny, leaving 50,000 dead civilians. I don&#39;t know, but that would piss me off.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 1 2004, 11:38 PM

1I apologize, that is what I had heard, but according to BBC, they still do not know exactly what happened. Apperently, though, one of the bombs strapped to the basketball nets fell and detonated, causing a panic.



2There were more than 1200 people held captive. Most were actually relatives of the children. But that doesn&#39;t matter. Killing a child is no worse and no better than killing an adult. I just don&#39;t like all this talk of &#39;slaughtering children&#39;. Generally, people don&#39;t talk like that unless they are trying to hide the facts.



3Actually, the Baltic states in particular are beginning to advance to the modern stages of capitalism, whereas Russia is slipping.



4No, you see, no matter what, that one person on the top depends on the support of the people who fulfill his bidding. Whether it be .1%, 1%, or 10%, they need some measure of support. And the people who supported them were Great Russian. The Ruling class were Great Russian.



5Actually, Yeltsin&#39;s major blunder was getting his ass kicked by the Chechen rebels and having to cave in to their demands for autonomy. The Russian military lost, they were in no position to occupy Chechnya.



6Well, the Russian people don&#39;t really have a choice, they aren&#39;t in control of their own destiny. Their ruling class knows that they can gain wealth by selling out to the U&#036;. Sorry, but those are the breaks.

7Also, consider this: maybe, just maybe, the Chechens oure hatred of Russia stems from the third act of the Chechen conflict. In 1999, the Russians again invaded Chechnya. TRhis time, they used long range artillery and rocketry to maximize enemy losses while minimizing their own.

8Basically, they leveled Grozny, leaving 50,000 dead civilians. I don&#39;t know, but that would piss me off.
1Never mind, I know how hard it is to fish the info from newspapers. Why would Russians explode that bomb? And how?

2Who would you prefer to be murdered- yourself, being an adult, or your child? I wish you not to ever face such a dilemma. Killing a child is worse, as a child just can&#39;t fight back. If I was held hostage, I would try to make the lives f terrorists complicated, and I would try hard to do that- I am not physically strong, but I know how to kill- theoretically, of course hehe. Anyway, a child couldn&#39;t even hope to do something of the kind.

3What are the modern stages of capitalism,exactly? They sold out their independence to the European Union, lock, stock and barrel. Is this what you call the modern stages of capitalism? They couldn&#39;t survive on their own any more than they did - now they want EU to feed them on the grounds they were treated badly by Stalin - but now they build monuments to fascists. If I could, I would do what Stalin did to them - they were, are and will be fascists, and it served them right. Do you know of the discrimination problems that these newly-weds to the EU money are creating? Have you heard of the Russian schools? Russian- in the sense of language, not nationality. Russian-speaking minorities are deprived of their right to study in Russian, although they constitute a large portion of the total population (up to 40 percent in Estonia). And when I say Russian-speaking guys, I mean those from ll over the former USSR, not just Russians.

4What country are you from? Do you support your president/prime minister or whoever is in charge of your country now? If not, why do you comply with the present state of things? Is it just because you have to?

I will write more tomorrow, OK?