400 Held Hostage in Russian School

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Well, Wales is happy to be ruled by the English priminister, aren't they. Anyway even if they did deserve to leave Russia, they don't anymore. The terrorism just makes matters worse for themselves.

They don't deserve to leave Russia anymore because they have been part of it for so long or they don't deserve it anymore because of the terrorist attacks?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

It's not exactly part of Russia, IMO. It didn't willingly joined Russia, but was conquered, 150 years ago. It's a nation, different from any other is the world - they are Chechens, not Russians...ethnic, as they're obviously citizens of Russia.
If they're different, they'd obviously want to have their own land, with their own government, language, rules, etc.
Russia didn't just allow them, and see what happens? Was it worth the land, that wouldn't otherwise affect any other Russian citizern? I don't think so. You might think it does.

Then I guess we can solve the Palestiniian problem and all Jews will just leave Israel then - right? I was wondering - if you feel this way - then why has Israel been so hell bent on keeping the land they conquered? Land changes hands through wars and under many other cirucumstances repeatedly. Russia has no obligation to give up Chechnya than Israel has to give up it's lands. Hell Israel is even building the damn fence on Palestinian land and you want to talk about how Russia should give up Chechnya? Maybe we should set the Ottoman Empire back up while we're at it and the US will give Mexico back all the land from Texas to California - yeah right. It's not going to happen and Russia has no obligation to give Chechnya their freedom anymore than Britain is under any obligation to let Northern Ireland go.

They are not a nation because they do not have their own government. They are part of russia and part of the russian nation.

[Insidious Rex]

Dangerous precedent you are endorsing there. Might makes right.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Dangerous precedent you are endorsing there. Might makes right.

Where did I say might makes right? and what precedent? Personally I think you are asking for a dangerous precedent. So tell me - how far back do we go in time in letting all these people have their own land? Should we let Iraq split up into 3 seperate countries? Should Turkey let the Kurds split apart? Should italy demand it's land back from the Roman Empire? Just because a group of people no longer want to be a part of a country - whether they are part because of losing a war or for other reasons - does not mean that they can just go back the way it was.

Since you're talking about precendent and might making right - tell me - should the North have just let the South leave and break apart the Union then without a fight? The South "just wanted to leave".

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So tell me - how far back do we go in time in letting all these people have their own land? Should we let Iraq split up into 3 seperate countries? Should Turkey let the Kurds split apart? Should italy demand it's land back from the Roman Empire? Just because a group of people no longer want to be a part of a country - whether they are part because of losing a war or for other reasons - does not mean that they can just go back the way it was.

*in steps trusty Fenir, drawing his sword*

Perhaps certian treasonous rebelling colonials in 1776 may have differed with your view....
Perhaps you should have said:
"Just because a group of people no longer want to be a part of a country (or Empire, like, ooohh, the British), doesn't mean they can fight for their own independance...."

And we're away!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

*in steps trusty Fenir, drawing his sword*

Perhaps certian treasonous rebelling colonials in 1776 may have differed with your view....
Perhaps you should have said:
"Just because a group of people no longer want to be a part of a country (or Empire, like, ooohh, the British), doesn't mean they can fight for their own independance...."

And we're away!

Nice try fenir - but I'm not playing your little games.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Then I guess we can solve the Palestiniian problem and all Jews will just leave Israel then - right? I was wondering - if you feel this way - then why has Israel been so hell bent on keeping the land they conquered? Land changes hands through wars and under many other cirucumstances repeatedly. Russia has no obligation to give up Chechnya than Israel has to give up it's lands. Hell Israel is even building the damn fence on Palestinian land and you want to talk about how Russia should give up Chechnya? Maybe we should set the Ottoman Empire back up while we're at it and the US will give Mexico back all the land from Texas to California - yeah right. It's not going to happen and Russia has no obligation to give Chechnya their freedom anymore than Britain is under any obligation to let Northern Ireland go.

They are not a nation because they do not have their own government. They are part of russia and part of the russian nation.

All right, but we aren't going to keep the land - only really small bits. We did gave Sinai back, and going to give Gaza Strip and most of the west bank, because of these reasons. My question is... wasn't it easier if Israel, or Russia, simply didn't object and let the people (Palestinians, Chechens) have their own country? It would, IMO, prevent many kills. Why do we need Gaza Strip anyway?

(most of the fence is on the 67' border, I believe)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

But if Russia give Checnya to the Chechans then they will be giving in to terrorrism and it will just encourage them. And I heard that when the children have been buries some Russians are going to take up arms against a place that they are sure was involved.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But if Russia give Checnya to the Chechans then they will be giving in to terrorrism and it will just encourage them. And I heard that when the children have been buries some Russians are going to take up arms against a place that they are sure was involved.

I wasn't talking about the situation now, but the situation 10 years ago.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But if Russia give Checnya to the Chechans then they will be giving in to terrorrism and it will just encourage them. And I heard that when the children have been buries some Russians are going to take up arms against a place that they are sure was involved.

Just because these terrorists were Chechnyan separatists doesn't mean that they speak for all Chechnyans. As you say, that's unlikely to be the Russian reaction, particularly since Putin built his strongman image by bombing Grozny back to the stone age.

There was an interesting article in yesterday's paper by Max Hastings, who quoted a comment about terrorism written in the 50s:

The aim of the terrorist is not military battle or victory in arms. It is to bring about reprisals on his community that will bolster support for his cause.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Nice try fenir - but I'm not playing your little games.

Well thank you sir and I appreciate your reply on the matter. It is good to see you are WHIPPED.....

*Fenir starts making chicken noises and flapping his arms about like a madman...*

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But if Russia give Checnya to the Chechans then they will be giving in to terrorrism and it will just encourage them.

I think a key word you have ommited from the above by mischance or deliberate act is "...If Russia give(s) Checnya BACK to the Chechans..."

The Russians already took what wasn't theirs anyway, just as all imperialstic powers do or have done.

No matter who your rooting for, the killing is never gonna stop until the Russians leave.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

*Fenir starts making chicken noises and flapping his arms about like a madman...*

Good to see you finally admit it!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Where did I say might makes right? and what precedent? Personally I think you are asking for a dangerous precedent. So tell me - how far back do we go in time in letting all these people have their own land? Should we let Iraq split up into 3 seperate countries? Should Turkey let the Kurds split apart? Should italy demand it's land back from the Roman Empire? Just because a group of people no longer want to be a part of a country - whether they are part because of losing a war or for other reasons - does not mean that they can just go back the way it was.

im simply pointing out the danger of taking your point that if your rightfully conquer something then you get to keep it. If I beat you up on the play ground and steal your ball and I keep it for two weeks do you have a right to say its MY ball I want it back? Do you have a right to even complain? Your point of view would lead to a resounding NO on that one. If I am strong enough to take stuff from you in the past means I have a right to keep it and too bad for you if you don’t like it. Well yes that’s a real dangerous PRECEDENT to set. That’s pure raw imperialism. Napoleon would be proud. And the logical conclusion is if you can be conquered then too bad. Your only chance is to conquer it back. And guess what that leads to when you are talking about a soviet union sized power and a two bit country like Chechnya: terrorism. See the danger now?

Im not saying anyone who conquered another land in the past should give it back. And im certainly not saying that after this unthinkable atrocity that Russia should turn around and give Chechnya their autonomy. No way. That would be ANOTHER dangerous precedent. But I AM saying that you cant justify owning something simply by force of arms. That’s equally as wrong.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just because these terrorists were Chechnyan separatists doesn't mean that they speak for all Chechnyans. As you say, that's unlikely to be the Russian reaction, particularly since Putin built his strongman image by bombing Grozny back to the stone age.

But it would still be giving in to the terrorist demands which would just encourage them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

im simply pointing out the danger of taking your point that if your rightfully conquer something then you get to keep it. If I beat you up on the play ground and steal your ball and I keep it for two weeks do you have a right to say its MY ball I want it back? Do you have a right to even complain? Your point of view would lead to a resounding NO on that one. If I am strong enough to take stuff from you in the past means I have a right to keep it and too bad for you if you don’t like it. Well yes that’s a real dangerous PRECEDENT to set. That’s pure raw imperialism. Napoleon would be proud. And the logical conclusion is if you can be conquered then too bad. Your only chance is to conquer it back. And guess what that leads to when you are talking about a soviet union sized power and a two bit country like Chechnya: terrorism. See the danger now?

We're not talking about balls here on a playground. And no I don't see the danger. So what you are saying is that if Mexico wanted California and the Soutwest part of the United States back - we should give it to them? How far back to we go in history to make all the conquered countries what they once were? Do we disolve the United States and say - here native people - here is all your land back? No - we don't. You can think of it as a defense of imperialism - but actually it's not. It's defense against everyone thinking that they can just have land back because at one time they owned it. As Russia's argument is - Russia would risk everyone breaking apart.

BTW - Chechnya isn't a country - it's part of Russia. It might have been a free country at one time - just like Scotland and Wales were independant countries, just like much of the world was at one time part of a different country.

Im not saying anyone who conquered another land in the past should give it back.

So then who determines who should and should not give up parts of their countries? I didn't hear too many people arguing for Britain to give up Northern Ireland and they went through decades of suicide bombings. My father was in Harrods right before or after an attack.

And im certainly not saying that after this unthinkable atrocity that Russia should turn around and give Chechnya their autonomy. No way. That would be ANOTHER dangerous precedent. But I AM saying that you cant justify owning something simply by force of arms. That’s equally as wrong.

So then the Civil War was wrong then I guess. We should have let the south leave so they could have their slave nation the way they wanted it. Instead we fought a bloody civil war to do away with slavery and keep the Union intact. I just don't see why you think that Russia whould be giving up Chechnya - the fact that it was once an independant country isn't reason enough to me.

My feeling is Russia has a right to keep Chechnya if they want it - and especially now. For one thing - Al Qaeada is trying to get a new base of operations. Al Qaeda is working VERY hard in Iraq and I believe they have now thought that they may be able to use Chechnya if they can wrest control from Russia.

[The Gaffer]

Interesting that you mention Northern Ireland, where peace has been arrived at by giving the Republicans genuine political representation, even after they'd attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister and entire cabinet.

Note that the British response was not to raze Derry to the ground.

It's also interesting in that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK, which goes back to the point about terrorists: often, they do it because they don't have enough support for their cause at home. By provoking retaliation, they hope to recruit more supporters.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We're not talking about balls here on a playground. And no I don't see the danger. So what you are saying is that if Mexico wanted California and the Soutwest part of the United States back - we should give it to them? How far back to we go in history to make all the conquered countries what they once were? Do we disolve the United States and say - here native people - here is all your land back? No - we don't. You can think of it as a defense of imperialism - but actually it's not. It's defense against everyone thinking that they can just have land back because at one time they owned it. As Russia's argument is - Russia would risk everyone breaking apart.

as usual you do a wonderful job missing and/or ignoring my point. find me where i said RUSSIA NEEDS TO GIVE BACK CHECHNYA! please. go ahead and find it. youll be looking for a while. in fact you must be blind since ive only said FOUR or FIVE times in this thread that thats exactly what they SHOULDNT do. saying something is setting a PRECEDENT CERTAINLY isnt saying oh you must give something back.

your rational is they dont have to give it back because they conquered it fair and square and they set up a puppet government in it fair and square so nah nah nah. and THAT kind of thinking IS EXACTLY might makes right. no getting around it. instead you SHOULD stress the point that giving chechnya their independence now would be giving in to the terrorists which is something we cant do now and ALSO attempt to make the argument well in the long run russia AND chechnya would be better off as one country IN PEACE AND COOPERATION then as two countries. And perhaps chechnyans would debate that point with you but at least its good rational and not simply sorry you are conquered. Deal with being treated like crap. That’s the way it works. Perhaps they could convince chechnya that its best to be part of Russia by actually treating them equally and not treating like utter scum as they have been since pre-soviet days. if you are thought of as dogs and scoundrels and given next to nothing under a communist regime then youd want your independence too. but if you were given the same respect as everyone else and treated fairly you could ALMOST make the argument hey yer better off with us then against us. but give up the “russia gets to conquer whoever they want because they just do” attitude. that will only inflame further the spark of terrorism which seems rather hypocrital on your part considering your point of view on other subjects.

So then the Civil War was wrong then I guess. We should have let the south leave so they could have their slave nation the way they wanted it. Instead we fought a bloody civil war to do away with slavery and keep the Union intact. I just don't see why you think that Russia whould be giving up Chechnya - the fact that it was once an independant country isn't reason enough to me.

hm just role right over that minor point that chechnya was once a independent sovereign country composed of very different people racially from the russians because you know that blows your ridiculous comparison out of the water. if the south had NOT been part of the union then you might be able to BEGIN to make this comparison. but its not even close. and furthermore the south was half the power of the nation. chechnya is probably not even 1% so again that comparison is a fallacy. finally the civil war was fought for the survival of the united states AND THE ILLIMINATION OF AN EVIL FORM OF COMMERCE CALLED SLAVERY. did russia invade chechnya because of their slave trade or some equally evil social practice? dont think so. so lose this silly comparison. It doesn’t work.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

as usual you do a wonderful job missing and/or ignoring my point. find me where i said RUSSIA NEEDS TO GIVE BACK CHECHNYA! please. go ahead and find it. youll be looking for a while. in fact you must be blind since ive only said FOUR or FIVE times in this thread that thats exactly what they SHOULDNT do. saying something is setting a PRECEDENT CERTAINLY isnt saying oh you must give something back.

I'm not going to respond to all your comments - I don't have the time to waste anymore. But I will say - that you did state that ONLY reason why you felt that Russia should not give up Chechnya now was becuase of the terrorist act. I must assume that if the terrorists did NOT take the school hostage - you would be siding with the Chechens in this.

Gaffer -

yeah - Northern ireland is peaceful now - as is Britain. It is however interesting how you say that terrorists resort to violence when not all the population stands behind them. Hmmmm - then might that mean that most of Checnya does not want to break free of Russia? I agree that Britain did not raze the towns of Northern Ireland - but there was PLENTY of violence.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, that was exactly my point.

However, we don't know, since the openly separatist candidate was barred from standing in their recent elections.

If a region democratically decides to secede from a state of which it's part, then how can that state legitimately deny the region's right to independence?

Again, however, we don't know because the democratic process in Chechnya is flimsy to say the least.