VABills Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Because Muhammed seems so dated? 20332[/snapback] I thought Usama/Osama was a title given to a religious student, not a name. I thought bin Laden was his name. Hence I doubt that children are being named Osama/Usama.
chicot Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 chicot, are you willing to accept the possibility that you tend to hold non-Islamic countries to a far higher standard when it comes to terrorism and war? Could you even give this any thought? If Israel took hostages in a Palestinian school, deprived them of food and water, and set off explosions, would you urge and caution Palestinians to be oh so careful in retaliation? At some point, the masses of muslims are going to pay for sitting on their hands, and even cheering while Americans, Brits, Russians, Israelis (Jews), etc. are murdered by Islamic scum. Yes my friend, scum. Filthy criminal scum who murder others under the guise of caring for their fellow muslims. All these "fundamentalists" truly want is power and money, and the spoils that accompany it. Yes, the things that money can buy, but you know what....they will lose. 20141[/snapback] That's a fair question - I'm just as capable of bias as the next man. However, I don't believe that is the basis of my argument, and, yes, I would be against the deliberate targetting of civilians in the example you cited. All other considerations aside, the problem with such a response is that it simply doesn't work. As Darin points out, how is a person to react if their loved ones are killed because of something someone else did? Besides which, those that advocate Russia getting "tougher" on Chechnya are ignoring the fact that, according to independent human rights organisations, Russia has already been guilty of numerous atrocities and human rights violations in Chechnya. How on earth are they going to come down any harder on them than they already have done?
Bill from NYC Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 That's a fair question - I'm just as capable of bias as the next man. However, I don't believe that is the basis of my argument, and, yes, I would be against the deliberate targetting of civilians in the example you cited. All other considerations aside, the problem with such a response is that it simply doesn't work. As Darin points out, how is a person to react if their loved ones are killed because of something someone else did? Besides which, those that advocate Russia getting "tougher" on Chechnya are ignoring the fact that, according to independent human rights organisations, Russia has already been guilty of numerous atrocities and human rights violations in Chechnya. How on earth are they going to come down any harder on them than they already have done? 20428[/snapback] Your answer is well thought. A major problem wrt the situation is that the countries I listed are NOT terrorists. Our strength lies in conventional military force. Behind the times? I dont know, but this is the horror that terrorists place their people in. You know, the fellow Islamic countrymen they supposedly care so much about. Think about it...You state that Russia is already violating their "human rights." Now, they are probably going to bomb them and kill "innocents." My question to you is, who is to blame? Russia for reacting, or the "rebels" who abused and even murdered children, and incited a powerful country to kill children of their own people?
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 About as likely as American Soldiers in Chechnya. They are all for the war on terrorism, they just don't see the war in Iraq as having anything to do with that. A point the rest of the world seems to agree with, the notable exceptions being the Republican Party and Tony Blair. 20320[/snapback] As I had stated in a subsequent post, a Russian presence in Iraq does not necessarily imply any concern about Iraq. Americans in Chechnya has no strategic value.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 As I had stated in a subsequent post, a Russian presence in Iraq does not necessarily imply any concern about Iraq. Americans in Chechnya has no strategic value. 20522[/snapback] And what are the strategic advantages of Russians in Iraq versus the drawbacks in being associated with the US invasion of Iraq?
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I thought Usama/Osama was a title given to a religious student, not a name. I thought bin Laden was his name. Hence I doubt that children are being named Osama/Usama. 20413[/snapback] Osaama means "One of the Names of the Lion" and Usaama means "Description of a Lion" (Muslim Names). There are numerous spellings. "Usamah" is probably the one I ran across the most. I believe his title is "Sheikh". In the book, which I don't have handy, this assertion (that Usamah was becoming the most popular boys name in Isalm) is footnoted. I'll try and get it for you later.
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 And what are the strategic advantages of Russians in Iraq versus the drawbacks in being associated with the US invasion of Iraq? 20615[/snapback] My previous post: "I belive the Russians are 1) Very angry, and 2) Are having some sort of "seller's remorse" re Iran. Probably Syria, too. Who would be dragging them into Iraq? They might want to be there, now. And not necessarily to fully participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Seems to me that they're starting to understand that Chechnya is an effect, not the cause. The concept of "surgical strike", as we know it, is not very well-rooted in their minds. Some feel that the Russian military approches ineffectiveness these days. I happen to think that the Bear is quite capable of exhaling some very, very bad breath. Unconventional breath if sufficiently wounded." A Russian presence in Northern Iraq (understanding the logistical nightmare) provides a favorable location for a land and/or air attack on Iran or Syria. It also jiggles up the balance of power in the region. The disadvantages are alienation by some nations - the Europeans notably. As well as some degree of animosity from Islamic nations - but just about all nations get that. BTW, IIRC, the "Invasion" of Iraq was something that the UN Security Council decided to be a remedy for non-compliance. The Russians (and the FSU and their allies/acolytes) are very much responsible for world problems. The world is dripping with AK-47s, not M-16s. Many of their chickens have come home to roost. They might not see it that way. But I expect them to take action...and I am well-concerned about what action and to what extent those actions will be. And I do not rule out a return to totaliarism.
Moose Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 It wouldn't be right or decent to attack the families of those who committed the atrocities. Perhaps one way to start eliminating the terroristic incitement from mosque pulpits (if that's a proper term) is to target the imams and mullahs of the mosques that terrorists attend. They might not be so eager to incite jihad if it means putting a bullseye on their own back.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 My previous post: "I belive the Russians are 1) Very angry, and 2) Are having some sort of "seller's remorse" re Iran. Probably Syria, too. Who would be dragging them into Iraq? They might want to be there, now. And not necessarily to fully participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Seems to me that they're starting to understand that Chechnya is an effect, not the cause. The concept of "surgical strike", as we know it, is not very well-rooted in their minds. Some feel that the Russian military approches ineffectiveness these days. I happen to think that the Bear is quite capable of exhaling some very, very bad breath. Unconventional breath if sufficiently wounded." A Russian presence in Northern Iraq (understanding the logistical nightmare) provides a favorable location for a land and/or air attack on Iran or Syria. It also jiggles up the balance of power in the region. The disadvantages are alienation by some nations - the Europeans notably. As well as some degree of animosity from Islamic nations - but just about all nations get that. BTW, IIRC, the "Invasion" of Iraq was something that the UN Security Council decided to be a remedy for non-compliance. The Russians (and the FSU and their allies/acolytes) are very much responsible for world problems. The world is dripping with AK-47s, not M-16s. Many of their chickens have come home to roost. They might not see it that way. But I expect them to take action...and I am well-concerned about what action and to what extent those actions will be. And I do not rule out a return to totaliarism. 20652[/snapback] So the Russians would want to go to Iraq as a prelude to an invasion of Iran or Syria???
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 So the Russians would want to go to Iraq as a prelude to an invasion of Iran or Syria??? 20682[/snapback] Perhaps. A presence would send a message at the least. They were hit hard, and brutally - children getting shot in the back as they fled. This whole thing is very worrisome to me. The Russians have little problem with phyrric victories...
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Perhaps. A presence would send a message at the least. They were hit hard, and brutally - children getting shot in the back as they fled. This whole thing is very worrisome to me. The Russians have little problem with phyrric victories... 20711[/snapback] Have Syria or Iran been at all tied to Chechen insurgents/terrorists?
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Have Syria or Iran been at all tied to Chechen insurgents/terrorists? 20795[/snapback] Not sure the Soviets are going to care (especially about solid evidence), given their history.
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 Have Syria or Iran been at all tied to Chechen insurgents/terrorists? 20795[/snapback] Beats me. But I guess it comes to a nation's words, actions, overt and covert support and so forth. Who needs facts in evidence when atrocities are commited? That's only a nicety that is practiced in civilized and stable nations with some sort of English Law tradition. The globe is awash with the bones of people - who were perfectly in the right - that tried to express logic and rectitute to bad folks. The bad folks killed them on the spot or enslaved them. There is no possibility to use logic. This terrorist crowd are not new. To raise individuals from birth, to twist them irrecoverably towards brutality is not new. The Nordic Berserkers. The Assassins of India. More recently, the indoctrinations of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and so forth. The traditional solution to such is genocide. It was interesting (and meaningless) to see over this weekend, some Islamic media statements to the effect that the majority of terrorism is from Islamists, and that they tolerated it's global rise. Nice of them, now that it is biting them. But so what? Armeggedon seems near. One may choose to die with wringing hands or one may choose to fight.
chicot Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Your answer is well thought. A major problem wrt the situation is that the countries I listed are NOT terrorists. Our strength lies in conventional military force. Behind the times? I dont know, but this is the horror that terrorists place their people in. You know, the fellow Islamic countrymen they supposedly care so much about. Think about it...You state that Russia is already violating their "human rights." Now, they are probably going to bomb them and kill "innocents." My question to you is, who is to blame? Russia for reacting, or the "rebels" who abused and even murdered children, and incited a powerful country to kill children of their own people? 20449[/snapback] The question is which came first - Russian repression of the Chechens or Chechen terrorism? I don't know enough about the history of that region to say (assuming there is in fact a definite answer to the question), but it seems to me that there is little difference between those who would advocate the deliberate killing of civilians (not saying you advocated this) as a response to Chechen terrorists killing Russians, and Chechen terrorists advocating the killing of Russian civilians as as response to Russian atrocities. Both are advocating the killing of civilians in order to achieve an aim. To my mind, there can be no justification for the deliberate killing of civilians without coming pretty close to the terrorists' own way of thinking.
chicot Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Do you believe that the ordinary Chechens don't support these killings? Probably the same as the ordinary muslims who do not support Osama bin Laden. That does leave a mystery though as to why Osama has supposedly become the most popular name for baby boys in that part of the world. 20329[/snapback] From what I've read, it seems most Chechens are pretty tired of the conflict and just want to see an end to it, which is unsuprising considering how long it's been going on for. I would guess that most Chechens do want independence, although I'm not sure that they'd be that crazy about a fundamentalist Islamic republic, but, even so, I doubt that any but the most hardcore would support what happened in Beslan the other week.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Can anyone explain why Russia actually wants Chechnya?
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 Can anyone explain why Russia actually wants Chechnya? 21007[/snapback] Uranium, molybdenum, and aluminum. Relatively warm winter access to the Caspian.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Uranium, molybdenum, and aluminum. Relatively warm winter access to the Caspian. 21015[/snapback] Thanks. Knew there was something to it. As if Moscow can actually develop resources.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Beats me. But I guess it comes to a nation's words, actions, overt and covert support and so forth. Who needs facts in evidence when atrocities are commited? That's only a nicety that is practiced in civilized and stable nations with some sort of English Law tradition. The globe is awash with the bones of people - who were perfectly in the right - that tried to express logic and rectitute to bad folks. The bad folks killed them on the spot or enslaved them. There is no possibility to use logic. This terrorist crowd are not new. To raise individuals from birth, to twist them irrecoverably towards brutality is not new. The Nordic Berserkers. The Assassins of India. More recently, the indoctrinations of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and so forth. The traditional solution to such is genocide. It was interesting (and meaningless) to see over this weekend, some Islamic media statements to the effect that the majority of terrorism is from Islamists, and that they tolerated it's global rise. Nice of them, now that it is biting them. But so what? Armeggedon seems near. One may choose to die with wringing hands or one may choose to fight. 20833[/snapback] I know there are lots of bad people in the world. I watched the RNC last week (just kidding, I didn't watch). I was just wondering why Russia would want to put troops into Iraq as part of a strategy of invasion or the threat of one against Syria and Iran unless it felt it was somehow threatened by those countries.
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Uranium, molybdenum, and aluminum. Relatively warm winter access to the Caspian. 21015[/snapback] And oil (Groznyy has some decent reserves)...and it turns out one of the most economical ways to get oil out of the other Caucasus states (which have significant reserves) is to run a pipeline to the Black Sea...and there's only a few suitable pipeline routes, all of which run through Chechnya.
Recommended Posts