Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on December 09, 2003, 05:31:18 am
-
explosion kills five in red square,
Chechen rebles?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/09/russia.explosion.ap/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105222,00.html
-
And another bomb in Iraq - thirty-odd dead there. Yet more pathetic squabbling.... :blah:
I hate people. You can't talk about something, you gotta go blow **** up. :doubt:
-
hmmm, interesting timeing, this isn't the first time a large atack in Iraq coesided with a largeish atack elsewere
-
It raises an interesting (and much-debated) point, doesn't it? Do the governments 'more developed' nations have the right to interfere/intercede with the governing of 'less developed' nations?
Should Russia control the Chechen government when much of Russia's history is based around uprisings against oppression? In the same way, does the USA or any 'Western' country have the right to change the way countries like Iraq are run?
Perhaps we DO have an ethical responsibility to change what we see is wrong. Perhaps though we have a stronger ethical responsibility in the name of democracy to allow the people to decide for themselves what is wrong and what needs changing. :confused:
Nonetheless, killing people won't make them not hate you.
-
Frankly, I don't really feel for the Russians. The Chechen terrorism pretty much their fault. They were the ones who went to war with the Chechens, twice, installed a puppet goverment, made a farce election, a deported or killed thousands of civilians. Of course, blowing up stuff is wrong, that ain't gonna help get their independence, but what else are they supposed to do? Especially when Russia is doing nothing better in Chechenia, except they are calling it 'keeping peace'
when much of Russia's history is based around uprisings against oppression?
Eh... last time I checked, most of Russia's history is based around opressing people. We, along with the rest of the baltics, plus 6-7 other countries were part of the Soviet Union for 50 years.
And you know what's funny. The leader of the winning party of the election, that took place a few days ago (and was naturally a farce), has publicly said that he hopes to live to see the day when the Soviet Union is restored in it's former borders. Makes our future rather cloudy, no?
-
Wahey! More Aussies! Welcome Impurial.
:welcome:
-
Helluva first post. Mik and Stryke will be arguing this one long in to the night says I...
-
Stu, with my limited knowledge on the Chechen thing, i have to agree.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Frankly, I don't really feel for the Russians. The Chechen terrorism pretty much their fault. They were the ones who went to war with the Chechens, twice, installed a puppet goverment, made a farce election, a deported or killed thousands of civilians. Of course, blowing up stuff is wrong, that ain't gonna help get their independence, but what else are they supposed to do? Especially when Russia is doing nothing better in Chechenia, except they are calling it 'keeping peace'
Nobody should ever kill people for the purpose of inciting terror or fear. We don't. Most developed nations don't. If both Russia and Chechnya are commiting terrorism, then they're both despicable.
-
[q]Nobody should ever kill people for the purpose of inciting terror or fear. We don't. Most developed nations don't. If both Russia and Chechnya are commiting terrorism, then they're both despicable.[/q]
Who's we?
[q]Nonetheless, killing people won't make them not hate you.[/q]
Stops 'em doing anything about it tho.
-
'We' just don't need to go as far as blowing things up to instill fear or terror, often the question 'where is my next meal coming from?' is a far more terrifying prospect.
-
No but seriously, who's we?
-
Who's we?
The US and most of the developed world.
The US can really instill fear just because it's the US. The very presence of the best-trained and best-equipped military forces on your soil is kind of frightening in and of itself. But whatever. Killing innocent people wantonly is wrong, and we don't do it.
-
...yet.
-
You seem to become increasingly like Razor with each politically related thread we get. :doubt:
-
The US not killing people wantonly? The US has been one of the more notable instigators of wanton violence.
-
Woolie: Um, how again does the US not kill people to instill fear? What's the death penalty? What was the point of taking over Afghanistan, or of Iraq? What was Vietnam (or, indeed, basically anything we did during the Cold War)? How about Hiroshima? Think about it- we're the one nation in the world to use an atom bomb on people- an entire city of them- needlessly and for the express purpose of instilling fear, and we are wholly unapologetic about it.
Cowing people into submission is a prevalent tactic among dominant parties- in fact, nearly the only one commonly used these days. Our entire law enforcement system, for one, is based on it. Underdogs operate by reason and ideology, rulers operate by fear. Hence the outrage against terrorism- who do these little pissants think they are, imagining they can lord it over us like our governments do?
Anyway, on Impurial's post, which is a quite good one- it's a tough question. I think the problem isn't that there's a conflict between the two ideas, at least at the moment, so much as that what is wrong is decided for the people. In the US as in Russia the government goes ahead pursuing its own interests and tells the people what to believe afterward. Such is probably inevitable given a strong power and a lot of information, not all of which is right on hand. In the end, it's governments and corporations that are inevitably stricken with megalomania, desiring to run the entire world- most people couldn't give two ****s about how the Chechens, Iraqis, or Afghans run themselves.
In the abstract, though, meddling is very rarely a good thing. If some foreign politics have a direct and significant effect on oneself, sure, go at 'em, but it's worth while to keep in mind that it's just about impossible to set up a government impervious to real civilian unrest. Orwell had about the closest one could come to a revolution-proof government, but arriving at that point would be near-impossible without someone catching on and fomenting revolt before it was ready. Just looking at the numbers, civvies outnumber soldiers in most governments 100 to one (at least), and any totalitarian state is going to be highly vulnerable to military defections as well, tipping the odds even more. When people tire of their government, they will dismantle it. The masses have an incredible tolerance for oppression, sadly, but life never becomes really truly unpleasant because of a government.
Anyway. Chechens. Assholes, the lot of 'em. I'm all for them. That theater stunt was particularly impressive, if not in the sense of "being politically effective". They're really making the elementary-school mistake of confusing the goals of "converting the Russian government" and "destroying the Russian government"- either one is doable, and indeed the second in particular is almost certainly within their capacity were they ever to get it together and organize sufficiently to blow up a few strategic locations with a few strategic potentates, and either one would achieve their desired goal, but trying to do both at the same time just ends up with political schizophrenia, and the sort of endless total war crap we see in Israel (oh, now we're at total warfare- oops! Now we want a peaceful solution- nah, let's blow 'em all to hell- wait! We can negotiate this! etc.)
I blame this pacifist bullcrap the liberals who sold out the demonstrators in America have spread all over the world. You can't remain nonviolent and stilleffectively fight anybody who doesn't give a **** about you and can control what the masses see and hear, but you can't do a revolution effectively with half of your side forming this Greek chorus shrieking at you and condemning the movement every time you try and fight- hence, you get tiny divided factions who can't really do anything useful engaging in what amount to senseless acts of violence, making even a fence-sitting government polarize against them, and a small army of ****heads who think that picketing somehow magically makes even organizations that hate your guts pause whatever they're doing. Or, more commonly, that not doing jack **** and whining about it whenever prompted is some kind of political action. Such is Iraq, say- if the people ever organized and dropped this demonstration idiocy, they'd boot out the occupation forces within weeks with, say, a few hundred casualties and a few hundred million in property damage. As it is, however, things are progressing so slowly and the messages are so mixed there'll likely be thousands of deaths and the complete and permanent destruction of the country before any conclusion is arrived at.
-
Meh...:doubt: People who blow themselves up for other people are idiots. Anyone doing anything terroristic is idiotic. Dammit, the whole world is idiotic. :hopping:
Once again another reason for me to buy that little cabin in a remote Norwegian village, where I can fish peacefully and not give a flying fig about whats happening in the world. And where the most important news of the day would be the weather.
I hate the media and news as well. They over glorify EVERYTHING! They glorify the wars, they glorify the terrorists, they glorify the protests, they glorify everything! And people who watch the news nowadays, take it for granted as "fact"... Meh..:doubt: I have CNN, BBC World, and Sky News, and each one gives a conflicting report on the same events. But they all glorify it. I can bet you anything if there would be no news, there would be no terrorism. Because the NEWS is the terrorists lifelife. If no one knows about an attack, its thererfore pointless. Except ofcourse if the attack is solely pointed towards the people who are being killed. But I believe the terrorists that are doing the attacks today depend on the news, to show what they've done. In a way of saying "Look world, what we have accomplished! Fear us!"
Meh... :doubt: Meh meh MEH!!!:hopping:
-
If there were no news, there'd be no democracy, either, even in the half-assed pathetic nondemocratic form it exists in today. Military dictatorships would be the best you could hope for. Quit your *****ing.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Frankly, I don't really feel for the Russians. The Chechen terrorism pretty much their fault.
Sure. Mister Iliojevitch, seller in a grocery shop, father of two sons and one daughter, actively participated to the Chechen murderings, and so where the 3 or 4 other people who died there while having a walk. They deserved to die and do not need to be feeled for. I eagerly await for the last Cheyennes and apaches to start blowing up some US citizens so I can not feel for them, coz it's their bloody damn fault if the indians were murderer ( that's ironical, I don't mean that second part, I prefer to point out, coz on this boards the IQ would be lower, it would go into the negatives ).
Not to be rude, but how retarded is that?
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The US can really instill fear just because it's the US. The very presence of the best-trained and best-equipped military forces on your soil is kind of frightening in and of itself.
That's why the irakis are so ****ing on themselves right now, right? :doubt:
-
Actually, I'd applaud wholeheartedly if the Apaches finally got their revenge. Join 'em, too, if I could. If not, just take the hint and get the **** back to Europe. That's either a very poor analogy or quite a good one.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, I'd applaud wholeheartedly if the Apaches finally got their revenge.
heh :D
Originally posted by Stryke 9
If not, just take the hint and get the **** back to Europe.
Mmh, I take it back, the natives and the US people gets along so well now, why would they start complaining now? :p
-
Yeah, all, what, fifty thousand of them left? Maybe twice that at most?
Those'd have to be some pretty heavily-armed Indians, I gotta say.
-
Mmh... not really, well organized, for sure, but well armed?
the resistance in France in 40, they were around 10000, they were against an occupation army, and yet they did quite well ( yeah, we sucked during the war, I'm the first one to admit, but still I'm proud to have such people in our history ).
-
200,000 people against the collective police force, army, and nuclear power of the United States, not to mention thousands if not hundreds of thousands of vigilante rednecks who are fairly well armed and would be all too happy to get a shot at one a' dem durn lazy injuns. Too many people in too restricted an area (which was intentional), can't engage in guerrilla warfare all that effectively.
Well organized and well armed. And both in extremes like nothing in the history of the world.
-
well, you'd think the Russian Goverment would do something to keep these things from happening. Like tightening security, or actually stopping ****ing the entire Chechen nation in the ass. But noooo, they're to busy dissing human rights in their own damn country, arranging false elections, or other such ****.
Now blowing up people is wrong, I said that in my first post.
I just think that you shouldn't blame the chechens any more than you should blame the Russians.
And did we have a thread when 200 Chechen civilians were ruthlessly murdered by Russian soldiers?
To sum up, yes the Chechens suicide bombers are inhuman morons, and the russians who got killed were killed without a reason. But the Chechens civilians who were (and still are) murdered in Chechenia by Russians are killed without a reason as well.
Oh, by the way, some of the Chechen terrorist attacks in Moscow in the beginning of the Second Chechen war have been linked to the FSB. And the Russian Intelligence, be it the FSB, the KGB, the GPU or the Tsheka, have arranged terrorist acts to support their war efforts or racism before.
In other news, the Russian Foreign Minister has recently made a statement, that they will invade any neighbouring country that harasses the rights of Russian citizens, has an unstable goverment, or presents a threat to Russian National Security. Which in translation means, that "If we feel like it, we'll arrange a little accident on your border, and invade". I feel so much safer now.
-
It'd be pretty hard to tighten security when an enormous chunk of your country, something like 70% of it at least, is uninhabited wilderness, and the group you're trying to keep out lives right next door and is connected by mostly similarly desolate areas. The entire freakin' population of the country could move out into guerilla camps in the forests, and once in there it'd be a piece of cake to get into Moscow. Or just fire rockets at it from a distance.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
200,000 people against the collective police force, army, and nuclear power of the United States, not to mention thousands if not hundreds of thousands of vigilante rednecks who are fairly well armed and would be all too happy to get a shot at one a' dem durn lazy injuns. Too many people in too restricted an area (which was intentional), can't engage in guerrilla warfare all that effectively.
Well organized and well armed. And both in extremes like nothing in the history of the world.
Well, I remember that guy, last year or two years ago, with his rifle, driving everybody mad, while acting completly incoherently, and being catch, what, at least two weeks after he began shooting at people randomly, while being on highways, highly populated areas and so on. Guess everybody decided to ignore him? ;)
Not that it would/did achieve anything in the end, granted.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It'd be pretty hard to tighten security when an enormous chunk of your country, something like 70% of it at least, is uninhabited wilderness, and the group you're trying to keep out lives right next door and is connected by mostly similarly desolate areas. The entire freakin' population of the country could move out into guerilla camps in the forests, and once in there it'd be a piece of cake to get into Moscow. Or just fire rockets at it from a distance.
Ah, so maybe they should have thought about it when they first started to invade the country, for no particular reason. They went for their usual 'invade the country/province you don't like, kill a ****load of innocent people to give them a lesson, and blow up everything you can.' Only this time their plan backfired.
[edit] and why the hell are the chechens call rebels? Chechenia declared independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, their parliament technically had the right to do so, only Russia decided to blatantly ignore that statement, and then later go running in rampaging with guns, and even later go rampaging again with guns, for reasons that are suspected to be the work of FSB.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
If there were no news, there'd be no democracy, either, even in the half-assed pathetic nondemocratic form it exists in today. Military dictatorships would be the best you could hope for. Quit your *****ing.
No... I don't *****.;)
But you're half right. The opression of all news would create a dictatorship, something perhaps reminicent of Orwell's 1984. But you missed my point, probably because I didn't state it clearly. My oppinion is just that I believe the News glorify everything they show. They make it "entertaining". And I just don't happen to agree with it, because that glorifying, is like a lure to bring in more terrorism. They see their handywork on tv, blared all over the papers, and get power from that. And I'm not saying they should stop televising Terrorist attacks, thats impossible. I dunno... Perhaps I'm only stating the obvious. In the end, I don't really care anymore whats happening in the world...
-
yeah, well, I care mainly because I don't want to end up dying from hunger in GULAG, like some of my ancestors.
-
If you look for the driving motive behind most terrorist/freedom-fighter groups, you'll probably find it in a hatred for an oppressive (and generally external) government. As Stu said, the actions of an oppressive government greatly contribute to the violent outbreaks of terrorism. And in this dog-eat-dog world, there is only one proper way to respond to that kind of foolish behaviour: more foolishness. :sigh:
The solution then, seems to lie in the prevention rather than the cure. Stop the first wave of violence and you'll have stopped the second, and the third, and the fifthtieth. It's cheaper than bombs and healthier overall than killing-the-other-dude-first (sorry, it's true).
Originally posted by Stryke 9
In the US as in Russia the government goes ahead pursuing its own interests and tells the people what to believe afterward. ...In the end, it's governments and corporations that are inevitably stricken with megalomania, desiring to run the entire world- most people couldn't give two ****s about how the Chechens, Iraqis, or Afghans run themselves.
Let sleeping dogs lie. Even if you have a spare nuke, it'd hurt you both less if you grant him his beauty sleep.
btw, thanks Black Wolf for a grand HLP greeting :D
-
Venom: Yeah, with significantly less surveillance investigative force, and force in general brought to bear than would be in an actual military action. You're right, though, and I certainly agree that a well-trained, clever guerilla can do damage well beyond what could be expected of one person, but a guerilla army cannot keep up a sustained assault on an established power without the tacit support of the populace. Even the snipers had to go out for food every day- you have any idea what it's like in an area under siege? Particularly a place like the wasteland reservations, where even your water has to be imported? You don't get support from a populace you're trying to kill, indeed, quite often they kill you back.
Dark: Well... it's inevitable. People want to be entertained, if they're informed that's secondary. Applies to everyone- I don't learn tensor equations because they quite frankly don't interest me, no matter that they're information and might be quite useful as such at some point in the future. Applies doubly these days, when TV has sucked out everyones' brains and makes them stimulation-starved addlebrains- you'll notice that all news these days is formatted to fit the ten-second attention span.
And, well, it'd be pretty hard not to make terrorism and that sort of thing look sexy on the news. After all, that's what terrorism and protests and the lot are designed for. Were the news to take a different form, people'd pander to that, and there'd likely be destructive versions of that pandering as well.