# Forum General General Discussion  Chechen bastard Basayev Killed in Southern Russia

## Dimitri

Russia’s most wanted man, Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev, has been killed, the country’s state security chief has told President Vladimir Putin, Itar-Tass news agency said on Monday. 
Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack in which more than 330 died, half of them children, and a string of other attacks, was killed together with other Chechen fighters, Nikolai Patrushev told Putin. 
The announcement came only a couple of weeks after Shamil Basayev, wanted by Russia for a string of shocking terrorist attacks, was named by Doku Umarov, president of the self-styled Ichkeria (Chechnya) as his vice president in a move seen as a signal towards radicalization of the Chechen rebel movement.  
Doku Umarov Umarov took over as Chechnya’s new separatist leader earlier this month after police killed Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev during a raid in an eastern Chechen town. In his first public statement in June Umarov vowed to widen attacks to the rest of Russia, saying rebel forces would focus on military and police targets but would avoid attacks against most civilians. 
That statement appeared to signal an effort to avoid terrorist attacks such as the September 2004 Beslan school hostage taking, in which 331 people died, more than half of them children. Basayev claimed responsibility for that attack, which shocked Russia and divided the rebel movement, since civilians, including women and children, were among those primarily taken hostage. 
When Russian troops pulled out of Chechnya in 1996 and Chechnya prepared to elect a president to lead it to de facto independence, Basayev ran for the job. He lost to the late rebel commander Aslan Maskhadov and became his deputy. He and Maskhadov — a relative moderate who was Sadulayev’s predecessor as Chechen rebel president — later became rivals. 
Russian forces and their local Chechen allies have been battling separatist militants for most of the past 12 years. The rebel movement has become increasingly drawn to radical Islam, but insists it is only fighting for independence. Most large-scale fighting has ended in Chechnya, but rebels continue to stage regular hit-and-run raids and detonate land mines and explosives, and the insurgency has spread to other parts of the mainly Muslim North Caucasus region.

----------


## DDT

> Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack

 I hope he died slowly!  ::   ::   ::   ::

----------


## JJ

> I hope he died slowly!

 I just hope he is really dead this time. They said about Basaev's death 2 or 3 times as I remember. Though... Basaev is just a man, one man has gone another man comes on his place. Putin should destroy the terrorist's system for winning such as their camps in Georgia, Berezovsky in London, kavkaz.org and so on... IMHO the news is not so important... Хрен с ним, с этим Басаевым...

----------


## joysof

> Originally Posted by Dimitri  Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack    I hope he died slowly!

 I hope ... (Моderated.) 
Shamil wasn't pleasant, but his crimes in the North Caucasus pale next to those of this Russian administration. And to give him his due, at least Basayev transcended the sort of lazybrained internet sheetkicking like what you peddle, DDT.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by Dimitri  Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack    I hope he died slowly!       I hope... (Moderated). 
> Shamil wasn't pleasant, but his crimes in the North Caucasus pale next to those of this Russian administration. And to give him his due, at least Basayev transcended the sort of lazybrained internet sheetkicking like what you peddle, DDT.

 Oh boo to you.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> Shamil wasn't pleasant, but his crimes in the North Caucasus pale next to those of this Russian administration.

 What do you know about all that? I can tell you, you know nothing.

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by Dimitri  Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack    I hope he died slowly!       I hope ... (Moderated.) 
> Shamil wasn't pleasant, but his crimes in the North Caucasus pale next to those of this Russian administration. And to give him his due, at least Basayev transcended the sort of lazybrained internet sheetkicking like what you peddle, DDT.

 And the "Assclown of the Week Award" goes to...YOU! Congratulations on marginalizing cold-blooded mass murder of children! Убей сибя апбасаеве!

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by Dimitri  Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack    I hope he died slowly!       I hope ... (Моderated.) 
> Shamil wasn't pleasant, but his crimes in the North Caucasus pale next to those of this Russian administration. And to give him his due, at least Basayev transcended the sort of lazybrained internet sheetkicking like what you peddle, DDT.

 Oh! Joysof!  Where have you been? I have missed our "pleasant" discussions.    ::

----------


## Ramil

The same rotten story "Basayev is dead - 34", starring FSB. 
Next week there would probably be a video with him proving that he's alive. 
Basayev slowly becomes a demon to frighten children. (Like Usama bin Laden in the western world). A rather convenient demon to show to population when time comes to pay taxes. 
Nobody knows for sure whether they are dead or alive, whether they are on their own or is under the strong control of secret services. 
To my opinion - there is so much sh|t in the whole concept of the international terrorism that trying to find some grains of truth in that pile is a rather futile task. 
Maybe someday, when classified archives of secret services will leak our children will find out what had really happenned.

----------


## joysof

> Oh! Joysof!  Where have you been? I have missed our "pleasant" discussions.

 Let's just say the best of me has been moderated away. 
Why is it kosher for you to wish Basayev a slow death, but not for me to wish you one? Is this forum out to reproduce in microcosm the prevailing conditions of Putin's Russia?

----------


## joysof

> And the "Assclown of the Week Award" goes to...YOU! Congratulations on marginalizing cold-blooded mass murder of children! Убей сибя апбасаеве!

 I think 'marginalizing' is the wrong word. I'd say 'contextualizing'.

----------


## joysof

> What do you know about all that? I can tell you, you know nothing.

 Well, your two cents have certainly illuminated the issue for everyone. Ta.  
Pointless neo-imperialistic wars which have taken the lives of more young Russians than Basayev could ever have hoped for; abductions in the middle of the night; slammers where the Geneva Convention don't hold no sway; and the rank Bush-administration-style hypocrisy of claiming that it's all about international terrorism and not, as it appears to everybody else, personal vendettas. 
This, as far as I can make out, is the story of the last ten years in Chechnya.

----------


## joysof

> Oh boo to you.

 I'm not even going to start with you, popfan.

----------


## Theodor

joysof, maybe do you know solution of the Chechen problem? Anyone can cry about human rights and poor figthers for the freedom, but nobody from them has not realisitc plan how unravel this Gordian knot.

----------


## DDT

Well, anyway apparently the person in question did *not* die slowly after all. The vehicle he was driving was "chock a block" full of explosives when it exploded.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> Pointless neo-imperialistic wars which have taken the lives of more young Russians than Basayev could ever have hoped for; abductions in the middle of the night; slammers where the Geneva Convention don't hold no sway; and the rank Bush-administration-style hypocrisy of claiming that it's all about international terrorism and not, as it appears to everybody else, personal vendettas.

 Oh my dear, what neo-imperialistic wars are you talking about? Chechnya was a part of the Russian Empire since 18th century, when the Caucasian leaders begged for joining Russia to recieve protection from Turkish conquests. It was, it is and will always be the part of Russia. The absolute majority of its population are willing to be with Russia forever and they consider themselves Russians, this was the result of the referendum. The ones you consider "fighters for freedom" are a lame bunch of bandits and hired mercenaries from the Near East. They have nothing to fight for but money and power. And the last thing they desire is the happiness and prosperity of the Chechens. 
I talked to several Chechen escapees who couldn't live in Chechnya anymore in fear of bandits. 
And more, you don't know the history, you don't know the actual state of affairs, you don't know nothing. 
Go enlighten yourself, then come back and discuss the topic.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by Бармалей  And the "Assclown of the Week Award" goes to...YOU! Congratulations on marginalizing cold-blooded mass murder of children! Убей сибя апбасаеве!   I think 'marginalizing' is the wrong word. I'd say 'contextualizing'.

 Actually I think you two are going to get along just fine!

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors  What do you know about all that? I can tell you, you know nothing.   Well, your two cents have certainly illuminated the issue for everyone. Ta.  
> Pointless neo-imperialistic wars which have taken the lives of more young Russians than Basayev could ever have hoped for; abductions in the middle of the night; slammers where the Geneva Convention don't hold no sway; and the rank Bush-administration-style hypocrisy of claiming that it's all about international terrorism and not, as it appears to everybody else, personal vendettas. 
> This, as far as I can make out, is the story of the last ten years in Chechnya.

 What do YOU know about it?
It's very convenient to wave off everything in Chechnya to personal vendettas.
There are also power, money and oil being the major factors of the conflict.
Not to mention that war itself is a bloody but quite profitable business. 
Some information I posess came to me from the hands of my former classmates who actually fought in Chechnya.

----------


## joysof

> Oh my dear, what neo-imperialistic wars are you talking about? Chechnya was a part of the Russian Empire since 18th century, when the Caucasian leaders begged for joining Russia to recieve protection from Turkish conquests.

 Russian Empire Russian Empire Russian Empire. You said it yourself. Russian (and Soviet) policy in such areas has always been motivated by the desire to maintain the territorial constituency of a geographical entity forever threatening to come apart at the seams. Any small stirrings of liberal democracy in Russia might have the same effect as Britain's 1945 government did on the great creaking edifice that was their empire. Shame shame. 
There has been large scale resistance to Russian rule in Chechnya since your 18th century; the declaration of Ichkeria and all the subsequent chaos is a mere detail in a torrid history. 
Did the Chechen nation beg to be deported to Kazakhstan, too?   

> The ones you consider "fighters for freedom"

 Beg pardon. Where do I use that phrase?   

> I talked to several Chechen escapees who couldn't live in Chechnya anymore in fear of bandits.

 I'd be scared of Kadyrov's goons too.   

> And more, you don't know the history, you don't know the actual state of affairs, you don't know nothing.

 Keep an keen eye on the double negatives, friend!

----------


## joysof

> What do YOU know about it? 
> Some information I posess came to me from the hands of my former classmates who actually fought in Chechnya.

 I think you're confusing experience with knowledge. I've never been blown up at a checkpoint or kidnapped at gunpoint, but I've lived in Russia, twice met veterans of the Chechen wars (whose courage I'd never in a million years seek to undermine) and, hey, I've read a couple of books. 
It would be nice if you'd respond to the things I actually say, rather than dismissing me as unentitled to an opinion.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> ussian Empire Russian Empire Russian Empire.

 You better comment my words than try to change the subject.  

> There has been large scale resistance to Russian rule in Chechnya since your 18th century

 Of course, the details are seen much better from Germany than from Russia.    

> Beg pardon. Where do I use that phrase?

 Aren't you talking about resistance against the "cruel Russian authority"?     

> I'd be scared of Kadyrov's goons too.

 No comments.   

> Keep an keen eye on the double negatives, friend!

 I did it for emphasis.

----------


## joysof

> You better comment my words than try to change the subject.

 Strange. I did comment *on* your words. Indeed. That's exactly what I did. Attempting to refute my remark about imperialism by writing about 'the Russian Empire' = hilarious.   

> Of course, the details are seen much better from Germany than from Russia.

 A lot depends on the beholder.   

> Aren't you talking about resistance against the "cruel Russian authority"?

 Beg pardon. Where did I use that phrase?   

> I did it for emphasis.

 Really? I thought you did it 'cause your English ain't that great. 
You seem to have nothing else to say about the North Caucasus.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> Strange. I did comment on your words.

 You didn't. I said: "Chechnya is the legitimate part of Russia". It joined by treaty, not conquest. And that was the Caucasian leaders who initiated the negotiations.   

> A lot depends on the beholder.

 Please, point out your sources of information.   

> Beg pardon. Where did I use that phrase?

 You used that idea.   

> Really? I thought you did it 'cause your English ain't that great.

 Ok, you've run out of arguments. Let's become personal then?

----------


## joysof

> You didn't. I said: "Chechnya is the legitimate part of Russia". It joined by treaty, not conquest. And that was the Caucasian leaders who initiated the negotiations.

 Yes, like British rule in Somaliland was enacted in agreement with local tribal leaders. Sophisticated geopolitical discussions, a plebiscite, perhaps. Give me a break. And I repeat: there has been large scale resistance to Russian rule in Chechnya since your 18th century. Sufficiently large scale to, say, leave the Russians with a very bloody nose in the 1994-6 war.   

> Please, point out your sources of information.

 You want a bibliography or what? Let's start with Gall and De Waal's 'Chechnya', the Roberts (Service and Conquest), Anna Politkovskaia's dispatches, countless articles in the Guardian, Le Monde, New York Times and Novaia Gazeta. Oh, and  a wonderful book called 'Le serment tch

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> And I repeat: there has been large scale resistance to Russian rule in Chechnya since your 18th century. Sufficiently large scale to, say, leave the Russians with a very bloody nose in the 1994-6 war.

 Did you find out that from the newspapers listed below?  ::  I recommend you to visit Kavkazcenter.org  

> Let's start with Gall and De Waal's 'Chechnya', the Roberts (Service and Conquest), Anna Politkovskaia's dispatches, countless articles in the Guardian, Le Monde, New York Times and Novaia Gazeta.

 Have you fallen from the Moon? If you consider mass media a reliable source... And if you think the western authors are telling truth and not propaganda... Well. You can say our books and mass media are lying as well, I won't deny that. I just tell you:  
We live here, we know. You don't.\
Dixi.

----------


## joysof

> Did you find out that from the newspapers listed below?  I recommend you to visit Kavkazcenter.org

 I've visited this site several times. Why is it alone authoritative?   

> Have you fallen from the Moon? If you consider mass media a reliable source

 Are the historians I mention 'mass media sources'? I'm well aware that to be well informed on any subject, one must sort wheat from chaff. I'd like to think I'm capable of such agricultural efforts. My grandfather had a farm.   

> We live here, we know. You don't

 . 
Where do you live? Grozny? If you mean Russia, I've lived there too - and may very well live there again. Not that residence confers any particular insight.

----------


## adoc

> Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors  What do you know about all that? I can tell you, you know nothing.   Well, your two cents have certainly illuminated the issue for everyone. Ta.  
> Pointless neo-imperialistic wars which have taken the lives of more young Russians than Basayev could ever have hoped for; abductions in the middle of the night; slammers where the Geneva Convention don't hold no sway; and the rank Bush-administration-style hypocrisy of claiming that it's all about international terrorism and not, as it appears to everybody else, personal vendettas. 
> This, as far as I can make out, is the story of the last ten years in Chechnya.

 Остапа несло...

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  What do YOU know about it? 
> Some information I posess came to me from the hands of my former classmates who actually fought in Chechnya.   I think you're confusing experience with knowledge. I've never been blown up at a checkpoint or kidnapped at gunpoint, but I've lived in Russia, twice met veterans of the Chechen wars (whose courage I'd never in a million years seek to undermine) and, hey, I've read a couple of books. 
> It would be nice if you'd respond to the things I actually say, rather than dismissing me as unentitled to an opinion.

 All right, tell me what do you mean by
"Pointless neo-imperialistic wars" 
and whose particular vendettas are you referring to?

----------


## joysof

> All right, tell me what do you mean by
> "Pointless neo-imperialistic wars"

 I think I've dealt with this. Do you want me to parse the sentence? 'Wars' - because there've been two of them and the second never really ended now, did it? 'Neo-imperialistic' because Russia's aims in the region constitute a combination of the mercenary (you said it yourself) and the strategic (it's like it's the nineteenth century and everyone's fixated on access to a warm water port - have you heard of the Great Game?). The territory is by no means integral; there is no moral justification for the time and resources Yeltsin and Putin have wasted on the region - and these days, unlike in empire-building days of yore, I think people require a little more of their governments than 'it's ours, so there!'. 
Oh, and 'pointless' because the history of the region demonstrates that no decisive victory is possible for either side.   

> whose particular vendettas

 'Это заслуженное возмездие за наших детей в Беслане' 
Dreadful though Beslan was, this sounds like the language of vendetta to me. It's Putin, if you don't know, quoted by the BBC.

----------


## pisces

joysof, do you have children? I don't but I can not imagine how death can be an unjustified punishment for organising a mass torture and murder of children. Anyway they killed him not as a punishment, but as a part of war against terrorism. He always have had an option to surrender and save his life.
And if you think that past events can justify this kind of "fight for freedom", then there should be nothing wrong in killing Germans (including children) for the terrible things Germany did in WW2.

----------


## joysof

> joysof, do you have children?

 I have nieces. Will that do?   

> I can not imagine how death can be an unjustified punishment for organising a mass torture and murder of children

 I don't hold with the truism that murdering children is necessarily worse than murdering anybody else. Has a tabloid ring, all this 'slaughter of the innocents' stuff. Although I suppose its origins are in the Old Testament.   

> He always have had an option to surrender and save his life.

 On the evidence of Beslan and Dubrovka, do you think Russian special forces would have accepted Basayev's surrender? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like to know what people think.   

> war against terrorism

 Isn't this just everybody's least favourite superpower (or ex-superpower) soundbite? If only the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan could have been explained away so neatly...   

> And if you think that past events can justify this kind of "fight for freedom", then there should be nothing wrong in killing Germans (including children) for the terrible things Germany did in WW2.

 I must say, I've had a lot of mud flung at me on this forum and I'm not sure it's all justified. At no point did I express sympathy with Basayev or call his breed 'freedom fighters'. I think killing kids is wrong, too - honest.
It does, however, irk me somewhat that so many Russians (and I've met a few) seem to be so ready to believe every horror story ever told about separatists and fundamentalists, but simultaneously turn a blind eye to the godawful mess successive administrations have made of Chechnya. 
Warmongers on both sides deserve due censure. I'm just trying to redress the balance here.

----------


## Ramil

> All right, tell me what do you mean by
> "Pointless neo-imperialistic wars"
> 			
> 		  I think I've dealt with this. Do you want me to parse the sentence? 'Wars' - because there've been two of them and the second never really ended now, did it?

 It has finished. Point.
The question is - what would you want to call war? 
Did decades of IRA bombings in Belfast was war? IRA thinks it did. The British think it was  a terroristic activity? Definitions depend on the side you're on.  
Rebels liberated the village 
Bandits attacked the village 
- this can be said today about the same event. 
By using definitions of either side of the conflict you begin to pick sides. Wars not always involve tanks and bombs. But if tanks and bombs are involved that doesn't always mean that it is war.   

> ... there is no moral justification for the time and resources Yeltsin and Putin have wasted on the region - and these days, unlike in empire-building days of yore, I think people require a little more of their governments than 'it's ours, so there!'.

 Life is hard. Government has some power. What do you think power is? Why people obey power? Because of implied physical threat. 
It is the nature of power to assert itself. Fear and obey, fight back and die. Did any power in the whole word behaves otherwise? Did any power in the world thinks about the needs of its lowest subjects? 
Any power asserts itself via physical force. Force is the keystone for any power. Without  force there would be no power. 
So any power in the world by its very existance IS a crime. I see no distinctions through policies of all governments in the worlds. Power is driven by the following needs:
- self-preservation
- enrichment
- expansion
There is no place for the needs of the subjects in this list. 
 To history:
It is very popular to blame Yeltsin for the Chechen war. But many forget that when there had begun separatistic movements in the North Caucasus, Yeltsin (being the president of Russia then) has ordered a state of emergency in Chechnya which means that army take control over the area to maintain order and to prevent any disturbance. But he didn't contol the army which took orders only from the president of the USSR Gorbachev. They were struggling for power those days so delivering the army under Yeltsin's command was not on Gorbachev's mind. So he just refused to teach Yeltsin humility. But that turned loose the situation in Chechnya and that's why in 1996 the army had to be brought there in order to prevent the total disintegration of Russia (Many nationalities vere very excited about the idea of independence - I wonder why? And who might be interested in this scenario?)    

> Oh, and 'pointless' because the history of the region demonstrates that no decisive victory is possible for either side.

 Nobody talks about victory. Victory can be at war. There is no war in chechnya so there can't be any victory. 
The population of Chechnya needs to be demilitarized. Border with Georgia needs to be well sealed, put some major criminals to jail (the ones you can lay your hands on), find and kill the most outrageous ones (in some 5 years you'll round nearly all of them), create jobs and in some 10-20 years everything will be allright.
Theoretically.
Thar require one major element - there must not be any foreign financial support of the opposite side. And that's why Mr. Berezovsky sits in London and is very afraid to reunite with his longing for him homland.   

> whose particular vendettas

 'Это заслуженное возмездие за наших детей в Беслане' 
Dreadful though Beslan was, this sounds like the language of vendetta to me. It's Putin, if you don't know, quoted by the BBC.[/quote] 
Allright I see. So you reproach such vindictive feelings? (Which I respect. Eye for an eye after all).

----------


## joysof

Ramil, I think the semantic points you make about the difference between 'war' and, say, 'armed conflict' are very valid. This is a massive improvement on 'What do YOU know about it?' 
Whether or not a state of war exists isn't really the point here, though, is it? We were talking about neo-imperialism. Did a state of war exist between Castille and Hispaniola when Cristobal de Colon gave smallpox to the Indians? And despite your rather glum assessment of the nature of global government, I'm not quite ready to retreat into moral equivocality - and nor should a good fellow like you.   

> Nobody talks about victory

 Putin talks about victory in the same way Bush does. Remember that 'international terrorists' is a euphemistic phrase for 'the Chechen separatists we haven't killed yet'. 
On the whole, I think your post was one of the best I've ever seen here. Just the right mix of cynicism and optimism.

----------


## TATY

I see joysof's point. 
Too many people on this forum are too quick to dismiss our opinions because we are Western. Everything negative in our media written about Russia is not true because it is Westen propoganda, and because we don't live in Russia (despite the fact that many of us have), we don't know anything. Have you not ever thought that there is stuff your government doesn't tell you, or is trying to put a positive spin on.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> I don't hold with the truism that murdering children is necessarily worse than murdering anybody else. Has a tabloid ring, all this 'slaughter of the innocents' stuff. Although I suppose its origins are in the Old Testament.

 Now there's a thought. How can you say that? Children are the most senseless victims of any sort. 
Is this some kind of new type of fight for equal rights? "If I am a target for terrorism, my children should be too"?  
Child murder is the most terrible crime you can commit.

----------


## scotcher

Personally, I think joysof is just making a moderately well-reasoned tit of himself. He spat the dummy at someone for making a snippy comment about Basayev, because he _assumes_ that anyone expressing dislike for Basayev must automatically support the Russian state's actions in Chechnya wholeheartedly. Now, not only does one categorically _not_ automatically follow the other, but no-one had even expressed a single opinion on the Russian state one way or t'other until his outburst.  
I have a feeling it may have had more to do with the person saying it than what was said.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> Too many people on this forum are too quick to dismiss our opinions because we are Western. Everything negative in our media written about Russia is not true because it is Westen propoganda, and because we don't live in Russia (despite the fact that many of us have), we don't know anything. Have you not ever thought that there is stuff your government doesn't tell you, or is trying to put a positive spin on.

   ::  So when that Bin Laden blasts buildings and captures planes directing them then to skyscrapers, kills several thousands innocents will it be ok for us to rejoice? Will you be pleased to hear "He's not pleasant, but what he does pales next to sending your troops to Iraq, so you're to blame for all and you pay the right price"? 
Are 300 butchered children from Beslan to be blamed in something someone in Chechnya ever did?

----------


## adoc

As opposed to a fact-based analysis, opinions of the kind joysof has proudly presented are a dime a dozen on many Russian forums popular among impressionable 15-year old boys and girls taking the unique opportunity to change the modern world to a better place.  These social commentaries coming from teenagers, suddenly concerned about the rest of the humankind, are hardly interesting, because, you know, everybody has one, and Russians, contrary to what one may have been led to believe in high-school, are not a homogeneous crowd. All these pages and gigabytes of "well thought out arguments" can be readily reduced to the inviolable "war is bad, mkay?"

----------


## joysof

> All these pages and gigabytes of "well thought out arguments" can be readily reduced to the inviolable "war is bad, mkay?"

 Did Aquinas get this kind of stick? Frankly, if the opinions I hold tie me to the coat tails of Russian adolescents, I've more hope for their generation than for mine. You call it impressionability, I call it freedom from the appalling cynicism which motivates Russian domestic and foreign policy. 
Don't spit on our dreams, adoc.

----------


## joysof

> Personally, I think joysof is just making a moderately well-reasoned tit of himself

 I think someone here used to say 'Hee'.   

> He spat the dummy at someone for making a snippy comment about Basayev, because he assumes that anyone expressing dislike for Basayev must automatically support the Russian state's actions in Chechnya wholeheartedly

 It's simpler than that; I just don't like triumphalism. Especially the ignorant kind. And didn't Vincent Tailors' response to my 'dummy-spitting' rather prove my subsequent points about your average Russian's lack of perspective on the issue? It's perfectly understandable; try asking my North London Jewish relatives for a reasoned analysis of the Palestinian elections. They know no more about the issue that the average Guardian reader, but you can't for a minute convince them that Arafat wasn't a cartoon villain.  
Before anyone starts, I'm not likening Arafat to Basayev.   

> I have a feeling it may have had more to do with the person saying it than what was said.

 Scotcher's clever.

----------


## joysof

> Child murder is the most terrible crime you can commit.

 Yeah, that's the truism. But, actually, why?

----------


## adoc

> Don't spit on our dreams, adoc.

 Sure thing, kiddo, keep on trolling.  I don't have dreams as I am not asleep.

----------


## Ramil

> I'm not quite ready to retreat into moral equivocality - and nor should a good fellow like you.

 "Good" also need a definition. My experience shows that this is being a completely different concept from person to person.  :: 
(Just grumbling)   

> [quote:3b7c6cx5]Nobody talks about victory

 Putin talks about victory in the same way Bush does. Remember that 'international terrorists' is a euphemistic phrase for 'the Chechen separatists we haven't killed yet'.[/quote:3b7c6cx5] 
True, but Putin is just a man like anybody else. Spare him this slips. Noone's perfect.
On the whole I think too that terrorists must be killed and separatism - confronted.

----------


## joysof

> Sure thing, kiddo, keep on trolling.  I don't have dreams as I am not asleep.

 What a great jaded bundle of emptiness you must be, in that case 
Really now, fellow: these things are much more fun if you actually enter into the debate rather than throwing pebbles from the sidelines.

----------


## joysof

> separatism - confronted.

 Really, all of it? Even where the separatists pursue their ends in a (relatively) civilised manner? Even if, say, Scotcher wanted to dissolve the Act of Union? 
I still think you're a good fellow, despite your semantic concerns.

----------


## Ramil

> Have you not ever thought that there is stuff your government doesn't tell you, or is trying to put a positive spin on.

 Have you?  
Russian people don't build up their opinion based on TV news. I've never met anyone who did. So quoting the media is pointless - how do you know whether that article or TV-program is true? Russians like no one else know what propaganda and brain washing mean. So the trust for the media information is lost.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  separatism - confronted.   Really, all of it? Even where the separatists pursue their ends in a (relatively) civilised manner? Even if, say, Scotcher wanted to dissolve the Act of Union?

 So they ARE confronted in a civilised manner.
But if they would begin to bomb people they would be dealt correspondingly.

----------


## joysof

> So they ARE confronted in a civilised manner.
> But if they would begin to bomb people they would be dealt correspondingly.

 Well, quite.  
I'm not a member of the Shamil Basayev Appreciation Society. 
And do you know what's strange? In the days when I favoured this forum with my presence far more often than I do now, I often found myself unfairly typecast as an old curmudgeon. Now it seems I'm a trolling teenager in the popular imagination. A guy could get an identity crisis...

----------


## joysof

> Russian people don't build up their opinion based on TV news.

 I've heard this from Russians before and I applaud the sentiment. But how exactly *do* you build up an opinion? Could anybody (Ramil?) furnish me with a list of sources which people are generally inclined to trust?

----------


## Theodor

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Russian people don't build up their opinion based on TV news.   I've heard this from Russians before and I applaud the sentiment. But how exactly *do* you build up an opinion? Could anybody (Ramil?) furnish me with a list of sources which people are generally inclined to trust?

 The Washington Post, Guradian, Boston Globe, The Times, New York Times and other Western newspapers. I read articles and compare their information with real life in Russia. Usually it seems like shitfall. Also I  discovered 5 demagogical instruments of western journalists:
1) careless citing;
2) appeal to the feelings, not to the facts;
3) careless comparison;
4) cutting facts;
5) inadmissible analogues;  
I don't read russian newspapers and watch russian tv. But I mean they use like methods.  
If you want to find truth then you should scrutinize all viewpoints (and I talk not about "independet" mass media). You should know what your opponent is interesting in.

----------


## joysof

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you use these Western newspapers as sources of information, but still don't trust them? Are they the best of a bad lot?   

> You should know what your opponent is interesting in.

 I didn't understand this bit either.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Russian people don't build up their opinion based on TV news.   I've heard this from Russians before and I applaud the sentiment. But how exactly *do* you build up an opinion? Could anybody (Ramil?) furnish me with a list of sources which people are generally inclined to trust?

 My eyes, my ears. 
That's about all.
Also even if you watch TV or read newspapers you tend to "read beween the lines". 
It's from our former Soviet experience, i think. We always suspect the worst in people. 
When something happens - I look for anybody who is taking advantage over the situation.
That's the primary suspect. 
When they're telling me about some plane crash in Southern Africa I say - maybe.
When they begin telling me why this happenned, I say - I don't know.
When thay say something about the facts i can gain proof for - I say the facts are: ...

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  Child murder is the most terrible crime you can commit.   Yeah, that's the truism. But, actually, why?

 You really need a reason? How about the fact that they are defenseless,  that they are not partial to anybody's cause apart from loving their parents, they have no understanding of the world, its dangers and issues. They are just brutally removed from their child-world (you have been a child yourself, and might appreciate how life was so much happier and easier then) not even given a chance to take a stand of their own.

----------


## joysof

> How about the fact that they are defenseless

 Have you ever met a child? Belligerent little sods, especially the boy 'uns. If they jump on your face while you're reading the paper, you'll know it.   

> not partial to anybody's cause apart from loving their parents

 Of course they are. They're partial to cyberpets, Christina Aguilera, fizzy drinks, violence and dope, some of them. Amongst other things. I think your warm and fuzzy sense of the little blighters displays a lack of recent proximity to them.   

> they have no understanding of the world

 Ineffably patronising. Some of the smartest people I know are children. 
Look, killing kids is wrong. But so was executing Timothy McVeigh. Moral relativism is a dangerous thing when we're talking about people's lives.  Even Shamil's.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie    How about the fact that they are defenseless   Have you ever met a child? Belligerent little sods, especially the boy 'uns. If they jump on your face while you're reading the paper, you'll know it.     
> 			
> 				not partial to anybody's cause apart from loving their parents
> 			
> 		  Of course they are. They're partial to cyberpets, Christina Aguilera, fizzy drinks, violence and dope, some of them. Amongst other things. I think your warm and fuzzy sense of the little blighters displays a lack of recent proximity to them. 
> [quote:37tghdfp]they have no understanding of the world

 Ineffably patronising. Some of the smartest people I know are children. 
Look, killing kids is wrong. But so was executing Timothy McVeigh. Moral relativism is a dangerous thing when we're talking about people's lives.  Even Shamil's.[/quote:37tghdfp]   ::  Killer arguments, matey, killer. 
You are saying that the death of Mussolini is just as bad as the rape, killing and partition of a child aged 6.

----------


## Alware

> Look, killing kids is wrong. But so was executing Timothy McVeigh. Moral relativism is a dangerous thing when we're talking about people's lives.  Even Shamil's.

 Тяжёлый случай, скорее всего безнадёжный  ::

----------


## Scorpio

Поздравляю всех с праздником -- каким, думаю, для каждого нормального человека является смерть этого выродка. Чтоб ему на том свете было потеплее, вернее пожарче.  ::  
Хотел было ввязаться в спор -- но ей богу, не буду. Не стоит он того. Просто не понимаю, как можно было публично защищать этого гада.

----------


## joysof

> Просто не понимаю, как можно было публично защищать этого гада.

 Oh for crying out loud. 
Я не защищаю Басаева. Просто предостерегал от обычного одностороннего подхода к чеченскому вопросу на здешнем форуме. Видимо, напрасно. 
С праздником.

----------


## joysof

> You are saying that the death of Mussolini is just as bad as the rape, killing and partition of a child aged 6.

 I'm quite aware that that's what I'm saying.

----------


## DDT

> Yond after all our u are saying that the death of Mussolini is just as bad as the rape, killing and partition of a child aged 6.
> 			
> 		  I'm quite aware that that's what I'm saying.

 
Finally we are at the very crux of this matter! This is what it's all about, folks. 
This line of reasoning that Joysof has presented here is the real depravity. Not the death of a murderer.  
You see when you suscribe to the belief that there is no difference between killing a murderer and killing the innocent because all killing is bad, you have given up the one thing that makes humans different to animals. Our ability to reason, to discern, to make a judgment between right and wrong. After all, denying that humans are capable of making a decision between write and wrong does not alter the fact that there *exists* right and wrong or good and evil.  
So if you cannot or will not make that distinction then you are no better than an animal yourself.  
For thousands of years humans in general have generally agreed on what "good" is. It is only in this day and age that some people are questioning what "good" is and who should be allowed to make that decision. This is a very slippery slope for humanity to get into and can only lead to complete anarchy and even more violence (that Joysof seeks to avoid).  
We live in a faulty and evil world where we can not always do "good" things in order to be "right". Sometimes we must kill in order to be "Good"...................As it was once written 
"All that is needed for Evil to reign is for good men to sit idle."  
Humanity must continue to be permitted to make this distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". To not do so is depravity.

----------


## joysof

> Humanity must continue to be permitted to make this distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". To not do so is depravity.

 I agree entirely. But doesn't the greatest depravity of all arise when ostensibly decent people, often out of an entirely understandable retributive instinct, sink to the level of the Basayevs and Mussolinis of this world? I think that's the point at which we're done for.   

> write and wrong

 This just about sums up the illiterate nonsense that is the rest of your post.

----------


## DDT

> write and wrong
> 			
> 		  This just about sums up the illiterate nonsense that is the rest of your post.

 Well, at least you are good for something Joysof. Spell-Check didn't pick that up.

----------


## Ramil

If you so sure about that would you clarity for me what "good" means and what "bad" means. 
Can a "good thing" for one be the "bad thing" for another? 
Can "good" for one nation be "good" for all nations? 
Can "good" for one person be "good" for all persons? 
Who wrote where about what good is? 
Good - is what people believe in. And different people believe in different things. Every bloodshed in the history of the world intended "for good". Western media behaves as if there were some kind of fixed issues on what democracy is, what freedom is and what good is. 
Every nation wants its neighbours to live the way they consider good. Unfortunately life is not that easy a thing. And the definitions of good and bad are different. Don't ever make the mistake that your opponent whoever that might be shares your opinions on these concepts.

----------


## DDT

> . But doesn't the greatest depravity of all arise when ostensibly decent people, often out of an entirely understandable retributive instinct, sink to the level of the Basayevs and Mussolinis of this world?

 I agree that it is a problem. But not that it is the "greatest", if these types of retributive instincts and emotions are kept in "check".  
The world will never be perfect.

----------


## joysof

> long post explaining what moral relativism is

 Well, exactly. And so what else do we have to cling to (to stop our brains exploding) in a world where one man's invasion is another man's liberation, if not the belief that, as a previous poster had it, 'War's wrong, m'kay?'?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> You are saying that the death of Mussolini is just as bad as the rape, killing and partition of a child aged 6.
> 			
> 		  I'm quite aware that that's what I'm saying.

 Well, then why don't you just go out and say it, instead of writing polemics page up and down and trying to insult as many as possible in the process? If you contend that every human life is identical no matter its past history, its potential future, its current frame of mind or how many frequent flyer miles it has gathered, then you are no better than saying "war's wrong, m'kay?"  
A whole lot of simplification and generalizing to come with a controversial idea. Which you have not justified yet, btw. Vague finger-pointing towards truisms doesn't cut it, my joyous joysof! 
Oh, and it follows, in your point of view, correct me if I am wrong, that war is always wrong, because it kills something or another. Is that the gist of this tirade of yours?

----------


## joysof

> writing polemics page up and down and trying to insult as many as possible in the process?

 Why is 'polemic' a dirty word? And it goes without saying that I mean no offence. Except to DDT. To him I mean offence. Anyway (to misquote Mencken), aren't all successful people querulous and bellicose?   

> A whole lot of simplification and generalizing to come with a controversial idea.

 If my posts were so full of simplification and generalization, I'd hope you'd have caught me out before now. As it is, you haven't met a single one of my contentions head on. It strikes me that you're the one peddling vague, friend. That and perverted recapitulations of my words. 
I miss badmanners. There just ain't no substitute for intellectual stamina.   

> this tirade of yours?

 Who's tirading now?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> A whole lot of simplification and generalizing to come with a controversial idea.
> 			
> 		  If my posts were so full of simplification and generalization, I'd hope you'd have caught me out before now. As it is, you haven't met a single one of my contentions head on. It strikes me that you're the one peddling vague, friend. That and perverted recapitulations of my words.

 Don't misunderstand me wrong! Your posts aren't simplified, your _views_ are. What do you mean I haven't met a single one of your contentions? I know you don't value the life of kids very much, but I felt like that was the one I did react to. If I recall correctly, you answered all my arguments with jokes.    

> this tirade of yours?
> 			
> 		  Who's tirading now?

 I'm sorry, did you just answer my question with a question? I was really looking forward to a proper answer... oh well, maybe next time!

----------


## joysof

> If I recall correctly, you answered all my arguments with jokes.

 Them weren't jokes. Serious points, lightly made.   

> I was really looking forward to a proper answer...

 War is always wrong. I confess that I approach the subject from the vantage point of a proper old-fashioned turn-the-other-cheek pacifist. (Of course, I'd make an exception for TATY.) How's that for a proper answer to your last question? 
Of course, all this misses the point. I'm very conscious that I live in a world of geo-political manoeuvring - and that my little pipe-dreams are little more than...pipe-dreams. But forgive me - I think we were talking about the Northern Caucasus...

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Now that is better! You seem like a reasonable fellow who is just out to argue. I can respect that. 
I just completely disagree with almost everything you ever said, but I'll survive!

----------

