Who are the real terrorists in Russia!?

The Observer is a well respected UK newspaper, here is a report into the foul actions of the Russian military in the Chechnya, in my opinion worse than the theatre siege.

The Link

Post what you think.

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

Russians victims. The agressors ? Chechnyas terrorists !

Pic 01

Pic02

Pic03

Pic04

Tchetchens " freedom fighters "

It's a good answer to your question FD.


P.S : Links are working. Click them, and after, refresh the web page. ( Thanks FD )

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by ultra_phoenix]

Yes it definatley would.

And the point is our governments are whole heartedly supporting this campaign which is raging terror on the chechen people. Stories of drunken soldiers raping and pillaging, even necrophillia. I for one am not going to agree to this campaign.

What the # are the Russians doing in Chechnya, its time they left and stopped this bloodshed.


[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

and as a fellow subject of Her majesty, I can assure you that the Observer is well respected by a very small circle - what paper is "well respected " by anyone?
But to the point - this is banal "fill the Sundays" journalism: the real terrorists here are the dead Causcasians. They attacked unarmed civilians explicitly; they were prepared to murder unknown civilains who had never harmed them personally; they had no uniforms.
Defining "terror" is impossible -we've been trying for years on ATS - but by any definition it was the Chechens: it's not a matter of casualties; it's a matter, finally, of politics and targets.
On a simple level: the Russians,I imagine, would have liked to have killed all the terrorists and none of the civilians. The Chechens didn't care who was killed -including themselves.
There will always be a wide gap between the hardest soldier and a mere killer.

A uniform is not what separates a terrorist from a soldier. Soldiers do not torture civilians and rape fifteen year old girls.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
Yes it definatley would.

And the point is our governments are whole heartedly supporting this campaign which is raging terror on the chechen people. Stories of drunken soldiers raping and pillaging, even necrophillia. I for one am not going to agree to this campaign.

What the # are the Russians doing in Chechnya, its time they left and stopped this bloodshed.

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

Because the Russians don't want to have a terrorists base close to their borders. If they don't act now, Chechenya will become a whole terrorists camps.

May be it's a good a reason. BTW, GO PUTTIN GO !!!

If it gets indepedence it will no longer need to fight, if Russia stays then things get worse. Its simple like that really...

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
A uniform is not what separates a terrorist from a soldier. Soldiers do not torture civilians and rape fifteen year old girls.

Stupid leftist well minded. I'm happy to see you back.

GO PUTTIN GO !!!

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
If it gets indepedence it will no longer need to fight, if Russia stays then things get worse. Its simple like that really...

Of course they want their independance. They will be more free to set up terrorists actions againts Russia.

GO PUTTIN GO !!!


[Edited on 28-10-2002 by ultra_phoenix]

I am well aware of the rash of stories about rape, the tying of captives to hand-grenades, and all the other horrors coming from the Caucasus - all I ahve seen have been very "anonymous"; but I'll believe it - soldiers in all armies have been guilty of such things and any student of the closing months of WWII will know the Russians have done it more often than most.
And if the Chechens wrere fighting it out with these soldiers - 'm not sure that Estragon wouldn't be on their side.
But they were not. they went to murder civilians -foreigners - women-children. The Russian soldiers' crimes -and they are crimes even in their military - were not their prime objective any more than My Lai was the aim of every US soldier in Vietnam. But such crimes were the Chechen terrorists only objectives. To threaten with death and to kill indiscriminately, if necessary.
The Russian soldiers are a disgrace to soldiers everywhere -the terrorists are copy-book heroes to terrorists everywhere.

All I can say is this, I do support the erradication of terrorism whole heartedly and comedemn it. I support the aims of the Russian military, but not the means and not when they are so blatantly out of control.

It also sickens me that our leaders do not bring these issues up with Mr Putin, and would be happy to sweep it under the carpet.

In the beginning of this war, Russians soldiers were not raping, torturing...etc etc...

They used these "methods" when they saw what Chechne were doing to the Russians soldiers who had been captured.

Could you imagine what a Russian soldier had to suffer when he was in their hands ?

I'll not cry for Chechnya !!!

USA, Israel and Russia are under terrorists attacks. And in some few months ( weeks ? ), the EU will follow and will have to chose his camp !!!!!!!!!!!

So civilian rape, torture and murder is justified but never terrorism... I think you might be a bit mixed up.

er, Ultra us poor ignorant EU peeps have lived with terrorist attacks on our soil for over 50 years.
this is your first real experience of it, that's why we can sort of forgive you for acting in such a naive Juvenile way about it, but please don't imagine for one second that our reticence concerning the methods you propose to use in this war has anything to do with not having been attacked ourselves.
It is because we have lived with and dealt with terrorists and, to a certain extent, succeeded in dealing with their threat that we feel obliged to point out the "kill 'em all" method simply doesn't work.

we like America.
when we speak out against this whole eye for an eye mentality its not because we think your evil, its because we want to help.

and, hard as it may be for you to believe, helping you does not necessarily mean following your idiotic gung ho doctrine.

your just gonna get more people killed.

Setting to one side the fact that I do not believe we know 1% of what this was all about and who these Chechens were - I still maintain that in so vague an awful a matter we can only hope to use the existing labels, with some clarity, when we discuss these matters.
Lousy clergymen do not condemn all priests; lousy soldiers do not condemn all soldiers but terrorists, it seems to me, do condemn all other terrorists. Only the terrorist invariably means to commit such crimes.
I and any older posters here lived a large part of our lives in a nation whose every military sinew was strained so that this Russia, the same Russia, could be reduced to atomic dust - and they were doing the same.
Insane it looks now -and probably was then; but daft as it may sound it wasn't "terrorism" - we knew them; they knew us. And everyone hoped it wouldn't happen.
the terrorist can only hope it will happen.
I am sure that it is finally about the individuals; but how can we know that?
So we are stuck with the labels and a duty to strive to prevent their impeding our judgement and our own individual sense of decency - a silly old word, perhaps, but I know no better word.

amen lupe. i experienced two semtex explosions myself.

- qo.

And if we do nothing a lot more are going to get killed.We can't turn our heads and hope they will go away.These Islamic terrorists are not like the IRA.And this war will not be anything like the terrorism you are used to.No matter what people are going to die.I would rather die fighting them,than be blown up doing nothing.

Doing nothing can often be doing something. A bit like not scratching an insect bite...

See this is what I don't get. whys it either "bomb em all to hell" or "do nothing"
we didn't do nothing about the IRA, on the corntrary we did a hell of a lot more than simply nuking belfast which seems to be your cover all solution.

"These Islamic terrorists are not like the IRA."

aren't they? then what are they like, please explain, see I was of the opinion that the IRA were a quasi religious militant organisation, a small faction of which used violent indescriminent acts of terror in order to try and force their beliefs and ideals on a country that didn't want to subscribe to their doctrine whilst terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda were quasi religious militant organisations, a small faction of which used violent indescriminent acts of terror in order to try and force their beliefs and ideals on a country that didn't want to subscribe to their doctrine.....oh hang on wait a sec.

y'see Nyeff this is one of the reasons your having a problem with this whole discussion.
you don't really know what a terrorist is.

you've accepted the demonising of certain groups by your press and governmental propaganda to the point where you no longer really consider these people as human. you just see them as evil monsters, and thats why you can't see any way through this except their destruction.

the fact is that the people who attacked the WTC are, fundimentaly no different from the IRA members who blew up the pub in london, or the farmers who got off their arses and took to the hills to liberate America from their colonial oppressors.

they are all simply freedom fighters fighting for a cause they believe in, one they are ready to kill or be killed for.

If you forget that, Then yo will never ever win this war because you will be fighting myths, ghosts, in many ways you will be fighting against ideologys, idiologys that you are actually supposed to be fighting this war to protect.

don't you see the hopeless dichotemy this places the war under?

I don't know if you're aware, Lupe, but U-P is European.

As long as soldiers are human, then soldiers will commit atrocities, just as civilians commit crimes every day. There is alot less crime in the military community, but that is because of regimented training and the enforcement of discipline. Bur even with training and discipline, people will still do evil things, and that will reflect poorly on the organization to which he belongs. But as it has been pointed out, there is quite a difference between a military's mission and the objectives of a terrorist organization, or at least the targets the aim for in the achieving of their goals.

Goals is another thing that needs to be considered before one states that peace will be achieved by the terrorists gaining an independant state. I'm not up on the Cheychen struggle, but it is my understanding that it is an Islamic culture, and if they are of the same mentality as the rest of the Islamic world, I see no reason to believe that having an independant state will stop them form exporting terrorism to other areas and using their sovereign land as a training ground for more death.

If anyone has a link or two that would give some history behind the Cheychen situation, I'd appreciate it.