Who ever said that? We still don’t know if there was a single Chechen among those who slaughtered children in Beslan.
It looks like we are saying same things and still disagree somehow.
Moscow bears a huge blame for the fate of Chechens. Yeltsin shouldn’t have started the first war. At the time I was absolutely in favor of Chechen independence. But Moscow was defeated and had to withdraw in 1996. Was Chechnya devastated? Yes. Was Viet Nam devastated circa 1975? Did Vietnamese decide to take eternal revenge on US? And neither did ordinary Chechens decide on eternal revenge to Russia. There were attempts to build up the country. Elected president Maskhadov might be a better man than Putin, for example. But Maskhadov had no power to restrain maveric “field commanders” like Basaev and foreign Islamic radicals. Maskhadov couldn’t stop drug trafficking and slavery business. Of course ordinary Chechens bear no blame for the despicable acts of those radicals. When Islamic radicals invaded Dagestan, all Maskhadov could do was protest. He couldn’t cooperate with Moscow, because Moscow never recognized his legitimacy and only wanted to take Chechnya back (main reason-oil). It is quite possible that Moscow has a hand in secretly supporting those radicals all these years. So ordinary Chechens are crushed between the rock and hard place. According to your earlier cite, Chechen nationalism may be dead by now. If Moscow achieved that objective, now it has to deal with real monsters, like those in Beslan school.
Well it would matter if it turned out the victims were specially selected for being Christians in a predominately Moslem area. But never fear, The Religion of Peace is not behind this. It’s the Jews who done it.
It’s one of the major national and non-“popular” (I mean the kind of papers with 1/3 crimes 1/3 celebrities 1/3 sports) french paper. It has a particular slant, catering for a young leftist urban readership, roughly, which is quite obvious regarding internal politics or social issues, but has much less influence regarding international news (with exceptions, like say, Bush or globalization). On the overall it’s a reliable paper, though the international news are less develloped and with less in-depth articles than in the unavoidable “Le Monde”. They’re less shy about expressing an opinion, too. I would give it a good rating (actually, the two only real other competitors would be the aforementionned “Le Monde” and the right-wing “Le Figaro”).
If I did, I didn’t pay attention. I quite never notice the authors of articles, and I’m not good at remembering names. I didn’t read her book.
I wouldn’t be able to judge. I saw/heard her book being mentionned many times, so I assume it had an impact on some categories of the population (those who are already interested in this kind of issue, I suppose). But I doubt she had much impact on the overall population. Essentially only the TV has such an impact, IMHO. And though there has been occassionnally documentaries about Chechnya, these aren’t the most watched broadcasting. Chechnya is quite never mentionned in the news, except when something specific happen (the siege of Grozny had some coverage for instance, there will be some coverage if someone is kidnapped, or if there’s a meeting between french and russian leaders, with questions like “will the Chechen issue be mentionned?”. I would suspect that with the articles here and there in the papers, and the odd mention on TV, a large number of french people are probably aware that something wrong is going on there. But ity’s very difficult to guess what could be the level of awareness of the “average” frenchman.
In any case, this woman isn’t famous in any way, shape or form (outside perhaps a particular subset of the population, once again).
I happen to have watched her on TV yesterday on some education channel, when I caught the end of a debate about the relations between France and the muslim world (muslim countries and islam within France). She seemed aknowledgeable and interesting enough for me to write down her name for further reference, but until I read your post, I didn’t make the connection with “Chienne de guerre”
Yes, but though “chienne” can be used as an insult in French, with the same meaning that “bitch”, it’s relatively uncommon and it generally refers to an actual female dog.
Actually, the’re a double meaning in “chienne de guerre” :
First, “chien de guerre” (war dog) refers to people who live by and for war. Generally mercenaries. So, in this case, I assume it refers to her being a war journalist.
Second, "chienne de…! " is sometimes used to refer to something desperatingly full of bad events. “Chienne de vie!” (bitch of a life??), for instance. So, in this case, it would probably mean something like “fucking war”
Muslim and Arab newspapers were unanimous Monday in condemning the bloodshed.
One Arab editorial writer wrote a scathing rebuke of Muslims around the world.
“Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture,” Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television wrote in his daily column published in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. It ran under the headline, “The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!”
Al-Rashed listed recent attacks by groups claiming to represent Islam — in Russia, Iraq Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — many of which he accused of falling under the influence of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of al-Qaeda.
“Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims,” he wrote. Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless “we admit the scandalous facts,” rather than offer condemnations or justifications.
I don’t know if she does, but I definitely do. And more precisely on the shoulders of Putin.
A chance had a de facto independance because they fought for years for it, not because it was generously granted by Russia. This chance lasted 3 years until Putin decided that he had to regain control of Chechnya. And in a country devasted by war, with various rebel leaders to cope with. They certainly did better, violence-wise, that what they had before ( a bloody war) and after (an even more bloody war). Can you elaborate about the “orgy of violence” under Maskhadov? And once again, an infiltration of rebels in a neighboring country isn’t an “invasion”. It should have been settled by cooperation and support to the elected Chechnyan governement that tried to solve the issue of uncontrolled rebel movements and former war leaders, rather than by a second invasion, causing some dozen thousands more deaths, and more destruction, and paved the way for even more uncontroled, fundamentalists, criminal and hateful leaders.
Personnally, nothing, given that, still thanks once again to Putin, the situation is much worse, the people (I mean the people left there) are even vastly more reasons to hate the russians, and the wahabbis fundamentalists have taken control of large parts of the rebel movements. It couldn’t be better than the first period of independance, given these circumstances, On the other hand, I’m not sure how it could be worse than the current situation, either.
Problem is : he never wished so.
Err…and what did he until know???
They have been granted nothing. If you refer to the short period between the two wars during which they got self-rule, they took it by force. If you’re refering to the current situation, being ruled by a puppet of Moscow “appointed” in ludicrouly rigged elections, under the control of Moscow, and more closely of the russian army isn’t what I call “self rule”.
How pragmatic would you be if your country had been invaded twice, 15% of the population killed and 35% have fled, your cities had been razed, your infrastructure destroyed, your country military occupied by soldiers who aren’t shy to make some money with extorsion and ransoming, or to have fun with rapes, with complete impunity on then spare time (I mean when they aren’t busy with their official duties of rounding up and executing your friends and levelling your villages)?
Now, I assume that there are a lot of Chechens who are pragmatic in the sense that they probably would want al this to stop, regardless of who rule them. But it doesn’t come as a surprise that a number of others are only filled with hatred, and ready to follow anybody offering them the oportunity of a shot at the Russians.
I don’t think it was that high by a long shot. And I assume they had the good sense to leave ASAP, especially since they won’t face the same prejudices and hardships that Caucasian (I mean actually from the Caucasus, not “Caucasians” as in “white”) people have to face in “mainland” Russia.
As for the refugee camps, they were mostly populated by Chechen refugees. But you shouldn’t worry anymore, since these refugees have been forcefully sent back to Chechnya, against their will (who would want to go back there?). The situation is “normalized”, remember? So what the point in having refugees? They’ll find their place in the ruin…err…I mean in the flourishing Chechen cities.
It’s not legitimate, but it’s logical. Given what has been done in Chechnya, given that muslim extremists have taken a strong hold there as a result, you’re doomed to find some dozens or even hundreds of people who’ll have no qualm killing whomever (including children, including themselves) if they’re expecting it to further their goal. These “black widows”, once again, for instance.
I fully agree with your last statement. “Russians” is just a shortening. Make that “russian politicians, russian generals and the scum amongst russian soldiers who are commiting all sorts of crimes because they’ll go unpunished”.
What kind of repercurssions could be more “terrible” than what already took place. Given that 15% of the population has already been killed, what would be a “legitimate act of self-defence”? Killing 15% more? 50%? All of them?
I wouldn’t know if what happened 150 years before (the invasion of Chechnya) or 60 years before (the deportation of Chechens) play an important part. Though I’m pretty certain they didn’t forget these events in their history. But anyway, it most certainly doesn’t matter nearly has much as what happened during the last ten years. The wounds are very fresh. So fresh that they’re still being opened.
But why would you want to share or shift blame? It’s not the russian soldiers who are raped. Are you trying to find some way to state or believe that the blame can be equally shared, so that we can all agree and move on?
And by the way, it’s not a “carefuly planned campaign of murder and rape”. It’s an incredibly brutal, chaotic and ruthless war where anything goes, from the top level to the grunt. Rounding up al the men in a village and executing them for the officers. Arresting people at some checkpoint and asking the family for a ransom for the privates. Raping teens for both.
** needlessly??? ** . Are you blind?
Who’s supposed to “control” them? The administration is Kremlin-approved, and 100% backing Putin. So I assume you can’t blame it for lack of trying. The rebels groups are split in many factions.
Law and order aren’t maintened in Chechnya by any strech of the imagination. Besides, do they have the right “to maintain (supposed) law and order” unsing any methods, massacres, torture, etc…?
Seems to me it’s quite an important point, unless you don’t care the slightest bit what happen to them.
I can to. Which makes me think that Putin’s policy has been not only criminal but also stupid.
They might think that at some point the russian population will insist on having the governement let the Chechen alone. But anyway, as I wrote above, you can’t expect nor the wahabbis fundamentalists nor the victims of ugly crimes to be level-headed and pragmatic.
Yes, generally, people fighting a foreign invasion lead less happy lives than people collaborating with the occupier. It reminds me of some event, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I don’t think it’s “carefully orchestrated”. Just that russian authorities couldn’t care less nor about the methods used, nor about the “side-crimes” commited.
And when you kill 15% of the population, I don’t think it’s “an inevitable consequence of the war”. The USA didn’t raze Baghad, nor did they kill some millions Irakis. And despite Abu Ghraib and similar stories, we have yet to find masse graves of people killed by the americans.
Nope. This thread is used to point at the ugly crimes that have been commited in Chechnya during the last 15 years.
No he didn’t do it himself. He just sent his goons to kill 40 000 of them (even if you believe these figures are exagerated, that’s still a rather significant number of children) and instead of bombing a school, to raze whole cities and villages.
clairobscur, you’re reading my mind - may I buy you a drink the next time I’m in Paris? I haven’t been able to post anything substantive today (work commitments), so you’ve just saved me a lot of writing. I’ll try to drop by later tonight (in the thread, that is, unfortunately not in Paris) to add a few things.
The fact that you repeat it 24 times won’t make the crimes in Chechnya go away.
Rather than saying I’m full of shit, you’d rather enquire about what hapened there.
Maybe there isn’t specificaly a proven instance with witnesses of a 12 y.o. being shot in the back. But there are many instances of crimes where the victims were childrens.
You can also try this other article from Amnesty titled **Chechnya: Rape and torture of children in Chernokozovo “filtration camp” ** if you’re still unsure.
You can also look back to another link I gave earlier about a mass grave who mentionned that children were amongst the bodies found (by the way, the bodies were of “missing” people rounded by the russians, and had clear marks of torture…not sure if the children bodies had such marks. Maybe they tortured only the adults and merely killed the children).
And it’s not like I had a hard time finding such cites. They are everywhere, coming from all sort of sources, and very easy to find. For people who haven’t decided to pluck their fingers in their ears and sing “lalala”, that is.
I honestly don’t understand what the problem is here. The job of the news media is to inform. A description like “hostage taker” is far more informative than “terrorist.” “Hostage taker” tells you what the guy is actually doing, which is what the news media is supposed to do.
The news media is not failing to get anything. Indeed, it’s not the purpose of the news media to get things. The purpose of the news media is to inform.
It seems to me that what you’re saying you’re troubled about is that the reporters aren’t concerned or worried or horrified. But that’s ridiculous. What you’re really worried about is that they’re not stating how bad it is in terms you consider strong enough. It’s not the job of a news reporter to state implicitly or explicitly how bad something is. They must merely state the facts.
Or don’t they actually mean it when they say “We Report, You Decide”?
I disagree. There have been hundred of conflicts the last fifty years which has not escalated to this level of barbarism. Torturing, raping and shooting small children is not evitable. Those people made a conscious choice to go out and do those terrible things, and not the Russians but themselves are solely to blame.
I don’t know, I’m not Putin. A continuation of status-quo perhaps?
Yes. Fresh wounds on both sides.
I’m talking of the fact that the Chechens are not without fault for the way things have turned out. Insurgence. War crimes. Systematic abductions. Terrorists bombings. Organised crime. Religious fanaticism. Attacking neighbouring regions (yes, Dagestan, being part of Russia, is a foreign country if you consider Chechnya independent), etc. etc. and now torture, rape and murder of children. Insisting all blood is solely on Russians hands is no way to attempt a rapprochement. Except when it comes to this particular terrorist act the thread is about, all blood is indeed on Chechen hands.
Apparently so. When you (both) insist in twisting a simple definition “de-facto independence” into meaning “a place is leveled practically back to the Stone Age, large chunks of its population are killed or displaced, and is expected to start over again from scratch with no resources or help from anyone […] its leaders are essentially appointed in some of the most ridiculous elections seen in that neck of the woods since Stalinist times” and insisting that’s the only reasonable meaning of those words you’re setting me up with a big fat straw-man. “Needlessly inflammatory” is the diplomatic description of such a debating techniques. It could be called worse things.
We’re talking here about the assault on Dagestan which occurred during the time of de-facto independence (lets go with my meaning shall we). Any independent country ought bloddy well be able to control armed units within its own territory enough to be able to prevent such attacks (as well as all the other stuff that went on) or they have no business being independent. Independence is what they wanted. Independence of a sort is what they got. Perhaps not under the best of conditions, but the truth of the matter is they made a terrible mess of it. Had they done a better job of it I doubt Putin would have found a reason to start the second war and they’d still be independent.
Perhaps they might. It seems to me a foolish dream. Terror seldom results in anything but a strengthening of resolve and a wish for revenge.
No you can not. Which is why there’s little point in trying to negotiate with them.
I don’t agree with the first part and don’t know what event you’re referring to with the second. France or Denmark WWII perhaps? We can readily agree neither country behaved with much courage or honour.
Well “orchestrated campaigns” sounds to me like something planned for that effect, and I don’t see how you can have “ethnic cleansing” without it being premeditated. The very term “ethnic cleansing” requires a plan for such else it’s just a refugee problem – perhaps just as sad, but not the same.
Yes many things have happened on both sides that are despicable. But note that the Russians don’t have the Americans (nearly) bottomless finances, superbly trained special forces (apparently the Spetsnaz are not something to write home about these days), high-tech military, etc. So they have less choices on how to fight a war and low-tech wars are always more messy and deadly.
A very interesting LA Times story claims that Russion troops also took hostages during the standoff, family members of prominent Chechen rebels.
Rest assured, tt appears the Russians and Chechens are handling this with all the grace and aplomb of Israel and Palestine. I pray the situation is resolved half so quickly. :rolleyes:
