PDA

View Full Version : British 'justice'



miciolo
03-09-2004, 22:42
In the light of recent events I wonder if the British court will continue to defend Zakaev and other chechen terrorists. Vanessa Redgrave, you, old c*nt, are responsible for the blood and deaths of poor children!

Smurfette
03-09-2004, 22:48
Serge Markov vs Vanessa Redgrave UK channel 4 a the moment....

Smurfette
03-09-2004, 22:50
She's sounding a little sheepish.

Smurfette
03-09-2004, 22:55
Ooooh gets shut up when she starts to rant about Russian government.

quincy
03-09-2004, 23:08
She and the British media in general will not dwell on the fact that terrorism against the Russian population inside Chechnya started in 1993 under Yeltsin's very liberal regime. The Russians did overreact and the rule of law was not upheld...But those cut throats have kidnapped and beheaded even westerners on humanitarian mission. Those who blame Russia oppose every move that Russia makes to return the territory to normality. The London Independent is always ready to attack elections in Chechnya. Are the British, French, American media afraid that elections will show that support for the warlords is minimal?

Polia Ivanova
04-09-2004, 00:14
I was switching between CNN, ITV, BBC and Sky news.

On CNN at the first time they said Chechen TERRORISTS but few minutes later their version of the story appeared with Russian "invasion" in Chechnya in 90s. Sounds as absurd as American invasion in Texas or British invasion in Wales.

quincy
04-09-2004, 00:27
The semantics is actually significant. A Russian "invasion" implies somehow that Russia is not entitled to be on its own territory. What will it be next? That Russia is not entitled to be in Kalmykia, Stavropol, Astrakhan...? These vicious attacks on Russian civilians totally defenseless, mean that the terrorists have little public support inside Chechnya (where hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians also live, a fact ignored by our friends in the BBC, CNN, Sky etc) and are now seeking victims in far away places

J.D.
04-09-2004, 08:20
The winners write the history books. Yes the United States invaded Texas, the soveriegn territory of Mexico, but HEY we won so it was all right. If The South in the war between the states had won it most assuradly would still be referred to as the war of Northern aggression. If Hitler had won history would probably reffer to him as the man who united Europe. Canada and The United States still have slightly different views on the war of independance against Britian.

Zephyr
04-09-2004, 21:34
You're right JD, that coupled with the fact that the facts are manipulated and changed on a minute to minute basis doesn't bode well for any kind of informed opinion even now, much less historically.

Blaked
05-09-2004, 02:09
I don't see how the 'Chechens as freedom fighters' idea can be distinguished in the minds of people from the US/UK from the 'Iranian fundamentalists as freedom fighters' idea. I mean, it just basically comes down to us vs. them. We're the modern, industrialized, quasi-imperialist west and we want the natural resources to fuel economic growth. They're an ancient society, structured according to the Koran, they're into things like cutting off people's limbs if they are bad, and they want independence so that they can keep living this way even if it means poverty. I don't see how American history books can seem almost ashamed about the 'way the west was won' when it should be the source of our greatest pride. Tell me again: how are Chechens different from Apaches?

koba65
05-09-2004, 05:12
Originally posted by Polia Ivanova
I was switching between CNN, ITV, BBC and Sky news.

On CNN at the first time they said Chechen TERRORISTS but few minutes later their version of the story appeared with Russian "invasion" in Chechnya in 90s. Sounds as absurd as American invasion in Texas or British invasion in Wales.

Unfortunaley, Polia Ivanova, you are absolutely correct. The criticism the West lays on Russia is hypocritical. The bloodiest war we (America) fought was because Southern states attempted to leave the Union. Anytime some wackjob in Texas tries to recreate the "Texas Republic" they're put down. Britain continues to hold on to Northern Ireland (rightly or not) and doesn't listen to any criticism about how they're dealing with that problem. If completely honest, the biggest mistake I think Russia did in Chechnya was killing Dudaev. I may be wrong, but I think he was strong enough and powerful enough (and smart enough) to keep these kind of despicable acts from being carried out. Of course, I'm sure he probably would have been assassinated by his own eventually. Why? Because foreign influence from the Middle East is waging a proxy war in Chechnya. One of these days everyone will wake up and see we have a common enemy.

uninformed
05-09-2004, 08:34
Originally posted by Blaked
I don't see how the 'Chechens as freedom fighters' idea can be distinguished in the minds of people from the US/UK from the 'Iranian fundamentalists as freedom fighters' idea. I mean, it just basically comes down to us vs. them. Agreed. And if Putin and the Russians want US support in their version of the 'war" against terrorism then they should STOP SUPPORTING NORTH KOREA, STOP OPPOSING THE WAR IN IRAQ, and STOP BUILDING A NUCLEAR REACTOR IN IRAN. Until they do so, they aren't serious about containing rogue states, limiting the spread of weapons, and reducing terrorism around the world.

Blaked
05-09-2004, 09:37
Yeah, especially considering that terrorists will be sent off from the same Madrasa schools to fight in Iraq, Chechnya, Pakistan, or Algeria. Iraqi civilians and Afghani ones alike refer to the jihadists as 'foreigners.' They seem to have some cohesive approach to being terrorists, why don't we adopt a cohesive approach to countering their efforts?



Originally posted by uninformed
Agreed. And if Putin and the Russians want US support in their version of the 'war" against terrorism then they should STOP SUPPORTING NORTH KOREA, STOP OPPOSING THE WAR IN IRAQ, and STOP BUILDING A NUCLEAR REACTOR IN IRAN. Until they do so, they aren't serious about containing rogue states, limiting the spread of weapons, and reducing terrorism around the world.

quincy
05-09-2004, 11:17
The media in the US,UK, France etc have sought to deprive Russian victims of sympathy for a long time, almost always laying the blame for Chechen terrorism on Russians themselves. The events are manipulated. Back in 1993 it was the Chechens under Dudayev that started to terrorise Russians inside Chechnya. This event is covered up. In 1999 Chechen terrorists invaded Daghestan. Also covered up. True, Russians have been heavy handed and Russia is not a perfect democracy. But would the UK, US, France let an armed rebellion on their territories go unchallenged? Putin has tried to bring normality through elections. The terrorists have tried to sabotage elections to applause (yes, applause!) by quite a number of newspapers in the UK, US and elsewhere. Russia is actually far more advanced than many other countries in providing autonomous republic status to many nationalities. In Turkey these nationalities were long exterminated with quiet approval from Turkey's western friends.

Depriving Russia of sympathy has been used as a political tool against Russia. NATO has been steadily advancing towards Moscow, ignoring Russian protests. NATO now wants to move into Ukraine, making the Russians even more nervous. Foreign-owned newspapers such as KyivPost have become mouthpieces for anti-Russian propaganda inside Ukraine. Oil pipelines from Azerbaijan to Turkey are being built, explicitly to sideline Russia. What has happened to consensus politics? And Russia may make overtures to Iran or oppose the war in Iraq as way to counteract what it sees as an ongoing cold war against itself. So whereas under normal circumstances the terrorists might have been called genocidal maniacs, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), merely refers to them as "hostage takers", "demanading independence for Chechnya". Media deception at its best!

uninformed
05-09-2004, 14:51
Originally posted by quincy
True, Russians have been heavy handed and Russia is not a perfect democracy.

NATO has been steadily advancing towards Moscow, ignoring Russian protests. NATO now wants to move into Ukraine, making the Russians even more nervous. Foreign-owned newspapers such as KyivPost have become mouthpieces for anti-Russian propaganda inside Ukraine. Oil pipelines from Azerbaijan to Turkey are being built, explicitly to sideline Russia. What has happened to consensus politics?

NATO expansion has been requested and welcomed by the new countries joining. They are almost ecstatic at the opportunity to participate as members of NATO. Why should NATO need Moscow's approval for Latvia/Bulgaria/etc to join? Those countries WANT to join. And if Ukraine wants to join isn't that their perogative? (assuming NATO wants them) Consensus politics - who practices that?! Not Russia! (Not the US, either, obviously.) It makes economic sense to build these pipelines to avoid monopolistic behavior by Russia - who is gradually taking over pipelines in other countries such as Turkmenistan, Georgia, etc

Zephyr
05-09-2004, 22:39
Originally posted by quincy
The media in the US,UK, France etc have sought to deprive Russian victims of sympathy for a long time, almost always laying the blame for Chechen terrorism on Russians themselves. The events are manipulated. Back in 1993 it was the Chechens under Dudayev that started to terrorise Russians inside Chechnya. This event is covered up. In 1999 Chechen terrorists invaded Daghestan. Also covered up. True, Russians have been heavy handed and Russia is not a perfect democracy. But would the UK, US, France let an armed rebellion on their territories go unchallenged? Putin has tried to bring normality through elections. The terrorists have tried to sabotage elections to applause (yes, applause!) by quite a number of newspapers in the UK, US and elsewhere. Russia is actually far more advanced than many other countries in providing autonomous republic status to many nationalities. In Turkey these nationalities were long exterminated with quiet approval from Turkey's western friends.

Depriving Russia of sympathy has been used as a political tool against Russia. NATO has been steadily advancing towards Moscow, ignoring Russian protests. NATO now wants to move into Ukraine, making the Russians even more nervous. Foreign-owned newspapers such as KyivPost have become mouthpieces for anti-Russian propaganda inside Ukraine. Oil pipelines from Azerbaijan to Turkey are being built, explicitly to sideline Russia. What has happened to consensus politics? And Russia may make overtures to Iran or oppose the war in Iraq as way to counteract what it sees as an ongoing cold war against itself. So whereas under normal circumstances the terrorists might have been called genocidal maniacs, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), merely refers to them as "hostage takers", "demanading independence for Chechnya". Media deception at its best!
Who are these people who control the media,whose interests are being protected in the middle east at the cost of American blood and treasure. Why is Russia constantly trashed and marginalized by the mainstream western media. Who the hell are these people ? Why does the world put up with it ?

quincy
06-09-2004, 00:23
Originally posted by uninformed
NATO expansion has been requested and welcomed by the new countries joining. They are almost ecstatic at the opportunity to participate as members of NATO. Why should NATO need Moscow's approval for Latvia/Bulgaria/etc to join? Those countries WANT to join. And if Ukraine wants to join isn't that their perogative? (assuming NATO wants them) Consensus politics - who practices that?! Not Russia! (Not the US, either, obviously.) It makes economic sense to build these pipelines to avoid monopolistic behavior by Russia - who is gradually taking over pipelines in other countries such as Turkmenistan, Georgia, etc


Great! Welcome to the new Cold War!

Was there a referendum in those countries to join NATO? 80% of Ukrainians were opposed to NATOs illegal bombing of Yugoslavia.

quincy
06-09-2004, 00:25
Originally posted by Zephyr
Who are these people who control the media,whose interests are being protected in the middle east at the cost of American blood and treasure. Why is Russia constantly trashed and marginalized by the mainstream western media. Who the hell are these people ? Why does the world put up with it ?

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Eye Opener
06-09-2004, 12:10
Originally posted by uninformed
And if Ukraine wants to join isn't that their perogative? (assuming NATO wants them) Consensus politics - who practices that?! Not Russia! (Not the US, either, obviously.) It makes economic sense to build these pipelines to avoid monopolistic behavior by Russia - who is gradually taking over pipelines in other countries such as Turkmenistan, Georgia, etc

Azeri- Turkish oil pipeline is not justified in economic terms. The only reason for building it is political- not as much to the benefit of the exporting country, but for eakening the regional states bypassed. Should monopolistic stance of Russia has been the issue, then why the funds wheren't invested into those economically meaningful energy projects, that Russia took over- to cut Russia short of its ostensibly "monopolistic" moves?

uninformed
06-09-2004, 13:16
Originally posted by Zephyr
Who are these people who control the media,whose interests are being protected in the middle east at the cost of American blood and treasure. Why is Russia constantly trashed and marginalized by the mainstream western media. Who the hell are these people ? Why does the world put up with it ? They're the same ones who write the Russian papers blaming the US for any number of events ranging from Russian athletes in the Olympics (many articles about the US being responsible for low scores of certain Russian athletes) to criticism of the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, to seeing conspiracy behind expansion of NATO, etc etc.

A wide range of opinions are expressed though usually it is the negative news that receives the attention. So...before you rage on about trashing and marginalizing Russia you should read the local Russian papers and their attitudes about the US/Western Europe. No difference.

Zephyr
06-09-2004, 22:19
Originally posted by uninformed
They're the same ones who write the Russian papers blaming the US for any number of events ranging from Russian athletes in the Olympics (many articles about the US being responsible for low scores of certain Russian athletes) to criticism of the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, to seeing conspiracy behind expansion of NATO, etc etc.

A wide range of opinions are expressed though usually it is the negative news that receives the attention. So...before you rage on about trashing and marginalizing Russia you should read the local Russian papers and their attitudes about the US/Western Europe. No difference.
I do read Russian papers ( Moscow Times excepted) and I beg to differ.Who owns MTV who owns (controls) Disney, ABC CBS, New York times etc. Who ?

koba65
07-09-2004, 00:15
Originally posted by Zephyr
I do read Russian papers ( Moscow Times excepted) and I beg to differ.Who owns MTV who owns (controls) Disney, ABC CBS, New York times etc. Who ?

Zephyr, which Russian papers are you reading that do NOT blame the US for a variety of what ills Russia? It can be pretty frustrating reading the newspapers here or watching the news - especially during the Olympics (ESPECIALLY during the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics). Ever hear the phrase: "Vo vsem vinovaty Amerikantsy"? We've been blamed for everything ranging from Russians losing medals at Olympics to the sinking of the Kursk.

Luckily, my job sends me to various areas of the former USSR and most (just like in the West) don't feel the same way as their journalists...

koba65
07-09-2004, 00:30
Originally posted by quincy
The media in the US,UK, France etc have sought to deprive Russian victims of sympathy for a long time, almost always laying the blame for Chechen terrorism on Russians themselves. The events are manipulated. Back in 1993 it was the Chechens under Dudayev that started to terrorise Russians inside Chechnya. This event is covered up. In 1999 Chechen terrorists invaded Daghestan. Also covered up. True, Russians have been heavy handed and Russia is not a perfect democracy. But would the UK, US, France let an armed rebellion on their territories go unchallenged? Putin has tried to bring normality through elections. The terrorists have tried to sabotage elections to applause (yes, applause!) by quite a number of newspapers in the UK, US and elsewhere. Russia is actually far more advanced than many other countries in providing autonomous republic status to many nationalities. In Turkey these nationalities were long exterminated with quiet approval from Turkey's western friends.

Depriving Russia of sympathy has been used as a political tool against Russia. NATO has been steadily advancing towards Moscow, ignoring Russian protests. NATO now wants to move into Ukraine, making the Russians even more nervous. Foreign-owned newspapers such as KyivPost have become mouthpieces for anti-Russian propaganda inside Ukraine. Oil pipelines from Azerbaijan to Turkey are being built, explicitly to sideline Russia. What has happened to consensus politics? And Russia may make overtures to Iran or oppose the war in Iraq as way to counteract what it sees as an ongoing cold war against itself. So whereas under normal circumstances the terrorists might have been called genocidal maniacs, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), merely refers to them as "hostage takers", "demanading independence for Chechnya". Media deception at its best!

Quincy, I agree with your statements that Russia gets a raw deal in the Western press, but to be blunt, so does most everyone else who doesn't fit into what the "media elite" desire. Putin especially gets a raw deal.

Regarding nationalities and autonomous republics, I have to disagree with you. Most advanced nations having multiple ethic groups somehow manage to avoid having "autonomous" regions. The ethnic groups manage to assimilate into society. You don't see that in the Russian Federation for a variety of reasons, but mainly, I would argue that Stalin's forced relocations, and the dominance of Russians over other ethnic groups during the years of the Soviet Union plays a role. After the Soviet Union imploded ethnic groups who felt (rightly or wrongly) that they were oppressed wanted past wrongs righted and special status.

The Chechens, however, don't really fall into this categorey, in my opinion. What's going in Chechnya currently is more disturbing. It's a war being waged by proxy. Forces in the ME are funding thugs to do their dirty work. Perhaps the situation in Chechnya would have been resolved already without foreign involvement.

Additionally, the Chechen sympathizers in the West who continue to label thugs, murderers, rapists, terrorists as "rebels," "separatists," "freedom fighters," do nothing more than provide motivation for them to continue their fight. The fact that a lot of "talking heads" (luckly, not all of them) in the West are "left-handedly" laying the blame at the feet of Putin and Russia for the latest attack can only serve to encourage more terrorist attacks. Russia needs to say, "F&$K world opinion" and do what it sees fit to resolve this problem. Of course, that's what the US did and Russia slammed them for it, but perhaps now those who criticized will realize sometimes world opinion must be ignored in order to provide a stable/safe environment for your own population. No one else will.