no you have missed the point. i do sympathize with the suffering of these people. i don't really follow that conflict so i don't know all the details, but if your description of the conflict is accurate i do sympathize with them. any concern at all is reserved for the ones who choose NOT to strap bombs to themselves and target civilians. these individuals are filth.


nope, rebels have taken kids hostage. i know enough to condemn these individuals to death. i don't care what their political motivation is - their actions have made their ideals irrelavent.

there is black and white in the world Jaguar. specifically targeting innocent women and children is wrong. end of story. no matter how sympathetic to a cause you may be you have to admit that.

say explosive and gun carrying rebels vs school children?


it is unreasonable and unwise to negotiate with people who think these tactics are acceptable. if you cave to their demands you better be prepared to go to the next school because it will happen again.

if they are trying to secede from a russia then i can see why the russian troops are there. we had something called the civil war here. quebec tries and fails every few years (without gunfire) and i believe the UK has had some experience with folks that just don't want to be a part of the family anymore. nations don't typically find it in their best interests to let parts of the country , or their holdings break away.

Britain's insistence on retaining it's rights of governance over northern ireland led to much unhappiness on both sides of the water. Had the IRA stuck to entirely peaceful protest the Good Friday agreement would never have been brokered in the first place and the virtual apartheid under which the descendants of the indigenous Irish lived would have continued unchecked.

Thankyou for illustrating, perfectly, my point. Both in moral absolutism and situational ignorance for that matter.

Are things really that straightforward for you? When do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? When total war is waged on you at what point are you obliged or forced to wage total war in return?

It's interesting, in the same breath, you seem to suggest that actions such as

are just routine efforts to keep the provinces under control and justifiable.

Maybe if
had happened to your sister, then your mother, you might start feeling differently about the wall of indifference eminating from moscow and the innocence of those who did nothing to stop or supported these actions in their name.

I'm not trying to justify this, I'm simply trying to give you a modicum of understanding of what is going on beyond simplistic moralisms for middle class americans.

It is interesting to me that the same people who denounce violent attacks on the innocent by non state sponsored group are the same people who will uphold the rights of the state to act to whatever degree of brutality is deemed necessary for the achievement of it's goals.

You seem to expect little or no restraint on the part of a state which imposes it's will on another state or which denies the cessation of a portion of what it considers to be it's own. Yet you expect a greater level of restraint on the part of a brutalised people in their attempts to rid themselves of an oppressor.

please point out to me in my words where i said that was justifiable.

do you operate soley as an intellectual to the point that you don't see that no matter what the situation is, targeting children is wrong - no matter who is doing it. you seem to be missing the fact that i am not condoning russia's behavior. i didn't say Russians are allowed to do XYZ but Chechens are not. i said anyone who targets innocent (not carrying weapons) civilians is filth. it doesn't matter their ideology.

yes i would feel more strongly about the situation but the entire world wouldn't devolve into shades of gray. there are some things that are just wrong no matter the context. targeting innocent women and children because you can't seem to defeat the military is wrong. end of story. it is the action of a bully no matter whether they are russian or chechen.

this is not about "simplistic moralisms". this is about one of the few absolutes that exist in our world. specific targeting of women and children to make a political point is wrong. you can talk about history, shades of gray, and moralism all you want - some things are just wrong.

wouldn't the needs of the many be for innocent people to quit blowing up while shopping? how many people benefit from that?

and from my limited understanding of the situation i don't think the russians were bored one day and invaded for the hell of it. didn't they send troops because of an attempt to secede from their nation?

Ignoring for a moment the techniques being used, do they have a right to independence from Russia?

The American revolution was all about gaining independence from England. Did we have a right to our independence, or were we wrong then? The Confederacy tried to gain its independence from the USA. They failed, but did they have a right to be free?

No, that's the point. You don't have a damn clue. It's complex, very and there is both the confusing and complicated movements since the collapse of the USSR and a long and interesting history before that as well.

While I can and do totally logic-only situational analysis this is more a case of putting yourself in the shoes of a mad as hell chechen mother or daughter that's seen everyone around her murdered brutally, hell hath no fury and all that. I'm not a fan of moral relativism and I don't want to let this get near metaethics but I don't feel you can simplify a situation this messy down to something so simple. You end up invading countries based on what your advisors feed you if you think like that. As far as I'm concerned moral absolutes are as much a red herring as the sacred nature of human life. Even if something is black in the middle it'll probably be grey around the edges.

Maybe they wouldn't be blown up while shopping if other people weren't being blown up while shopping as well. Bringing the flight to the enemy isn't exactly a new tactic.

This is biased and fairly poor but the best canned history I can find without listing an ISBN.
A little taste

That's going on my list of all time favourite quotes

Does anyone remember how India resisted occupation?

The first palestinian intafada used similar tactics, there are groups that protest nonviolently against the barrier daily, often met by violent force by the IDF. Don't see that on FOX do you?

so you're saying it doesn't work?

"Does anyone remember how India resisted occupation?"

India resisted or complied with occupation in various ways at various times. Ghandi and his followers were one strand of that, a non violent strand. The Chechens have non violent strands to their resistance also.

Depends on the circumstances. One could say 'not in this day and age', but then you'd be overlooking the Rose Revolution in Georgia but it's rare that it works and requires certain conditions which don't seem to be that common. Certainly doesn't work in the middle of a conflict that is already well established.

The very fact we all know so little about a conflict which has been raging for the best part of a decade shows how much interest the world has in hearing the Chechens. Why would peaceful resistance on their part make us more inclined to help them?