Chechnya Tee Hee

First of all my little friend , chechniya dose not have the constitutional right to leave russia, unlike ukraine, yugoslavia and so on which had the constitutional right to leave the ussr.
Russia is only hurting itself by whatever it dose, their the ones who will be repairing everything in the end.
you are right , chechniya is a very important geographical location to russia if it is let free the rest of that area will join in, inclueding ural and parts of siberia.

as for the FREEDOM fighters they'r people who want freedom to profit themselves , trade drugs weapons and slaves.
most of the population that lives in chechniya dosnt want it to be separated.

as for grozny , grozny is majourly occupied by RUSSIANS not chechniyans, when the conflict started the chechniyan populattion started to kick the russian population out,
then they themselves went to the main land themselves.

right now most of the chechniyans living in majour city's live better than the russians do and have no intention of leaving, the money they make is brought by crime.

ever heard of the slave trade chechniyans are into?
break into a flat , take all the occupants then chop off their fingers and send them to their relatives asking for huge rewards.

The only people who are a minority by the way wanting freedom want it for their own purposes not for the good of chechniya.
They already got freedom once but they attecked Dagistan maybe if they stayed quiet and rebuilt themselves with the money russia sent many times they would be a nice turist rich country not a terrorrist fcuk fest.

and frankly i dont know where the hell you get your information from , I have a feeling your a russian imigrated Jew you seem to know somthing of russia , hate the palestinians and support the chechniyans... dont get me rong thats just my estimation from alot of people like you that I have met.
but seriously where you from whats your nationality might be an answer to a few things.
 
First of all my little friend , chechniya dose not have the constitutional right to leave russia, unlike ukraine, yugoslavia and so on which had the constitutional right to leave the ussr.

Did Chechnya have the constitutional right to ceded from the USSR not Russia? If you want to use Ukraine in this context, you have to use the USSR's constitution not the Russian. I am confident that within the USSR's constitution it was not allowed to cede either. But it was separated, because of the political will of Moscow.

Russia is only hurting itself by whatever it dose, their the ones who will be repairing everything in the end.

That is assuming that Russia wins, that is far from certain today.

you are right , Chechnya is a very important geographical location to russia if it is let free the rest of that area will join in, including ural and parts of siberia.

So now you agree with me, in contradiction to what you have been saying before? That giving Chechnya independence with threatens the Russian Federations coherence? Exactly my point, Russia knows that Chechnya should be independent, she has much as a case as Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, just Russia wants oil, and territorial integrity, regardless of Chechens wants.

as for the FREEDOM fighters they'r people who want freedom to profit themselves , trade drugs weapons and slaves.

Such fighters wouldn't be a issue in Chechnya if Russia granted her the independence she was seeking since 1991. Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been in Chechnya, Russia made this situation herself with the refusal and invasion Chechnya, rather then resolving it by peaceful democratic means like other advanced states.

most of the population that lives in chechniya dosnt want it to be separated.

You can support this? Do you believe this, if so then it means shitake.

as for grozny , grozny is majourly occupied by RUSSIANS not chechniyans, when the conflict started the chechniyan populattion started to kick the russian population out,

Groznyy does not = Chechnya, Chechnya’s majority population is still Chechen. In Kazakhstan large cities have large, maybe even majority Russian populations. But the country is largely Kazakh, same applies to Chechnya. The difference being that one is independent and the other one is not. Demographically there simply is no case for Russia. About kicking Russians out that was wrong, but one must understand that invading a people who want independance it does seem logical to kick out your enemies, like Stalin did the Chechens in the late 40's.

right now most of the chechniyans living in majour city's live better than the russians do and have no intention of leaving, the money they make is brought by crime.

I love this un-supported, and subjective statements. I very much doubt you can even reference this with a credible source (meaning not Russian). This is reminiscent of a kind of neo-anti-Semitism. Hatred or bias against a people for no verifiable reason. Are the blacks all on welfare too? Or the Jews super rich villains, or the Mexicans dirty? Sick, this is the mentality of modern Russia it seems.

ever heard of the slave trade chechniyans are into?
break into a flat , take all the occupants then chop off their fingers and send them to their relatives asking for huge rewards.

And this has to do with Chechen independence how?

The only people who are a minority by the way wanting freedom want it for their own purposes not for the good of chechniya.

Unless there is a fair and free referendum on Russian control no one can say this with any certainty. Why is Russia not allowing a plebiscite? Obviously b/c she will lose it.

They already got freedom once but they attecked Dagistan maybe if they stayed quiet and rebuilt themselves with the money russia sent many times they would be a nice turist rich country not a terrorrist fcuk fest.

I think people would rather want to live free under their own rule then that of a foreign power. You cannot enforce your ethos and morals on ppl who don't want them, and you might think like imperialists do that you are doing the Chechens a favour, you aren't.


and frankly i dont know where the hell you get your information from ,

http://www.amnesty.org/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/


I have a feeling your a russian imigrated Jew you seem to know somthing of russia ,

If I were? So what? Does being Jewish mean I support some cause over another?

hate the palestinians and support the chechniyans... dont get me rong thats just my estimation from alot of people like you that I have met.

Stop spewing ignorance all over me please, I support both the Palestinian cause the Chechen cause, and the cause of ppl who want to freed from political oppression.

but seriously where you from whats your nationality might be an answer to a few things.

No it wouldn't.
 
I feel this will hapen Putin gets re-elected and stalins work in chechnya will be done...
And also a little note after stalin was done with chechens about 500k returned to chechnya so I doubt they are a huge majority there. Basicly the Whole are is encircled at this point and slowly being squeezed against the souther border. After re-election it will be shoved into the southern border expulting the entire chechen population. All the attacks right now are basicly making the population less and less sympathetic to their cause.

I consider myself a RussianJew although not recognized in the eyes of the Orthodox Jews as a jew which makes me a bit hateful... But I totally support eradication of both palestinians*arabs* no such thing as palestinian exists
and chechens who are rebelling... Also talking, referendums and such do not work period. They just make the terrorists/rebels think they are winning and they create more and more havoc thinking they will get a better deal.
 
no such thing as Russianjew exist in the eyes of orthodox jew ? (wich makes you a bit hatefull in your own word) and YOU of all persons say palestines don't exist tssk tssk shame on you, we probably wouldn't have this worldwide annoying muslim uproar if the zionists didn't push their agenda in 1948?
 
Last edited:
Eluminate


So let's see you advocate ethnic cleansing, a holocaust, and you are probably angry when they blow up a bar...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as childish as it sounds, they started it.
they can't expect people to remain friendly and passive when bars are getting blown up
 
Did Chechnya have the constitutional right to ceded from the USSR not Russia? If you want to use Ukraine in this context, you have to use the USSR's constitution not the Russian. I am confident that within the USSR's constitution it was not allowed to cede either. But it was separated, because of the political will of Moscow.

Ukraine had the right to leave the USSR just like the other 14 republics who made up the country. No part of russia has the constitutional right to leave russia as a country (the same is true for any state of the United States.) (and in most other countries a province cant seporate from the country constitutionally.) By the way Ukraine and Belarus separated themselves from Russia by the will of their presidents in 1991 as you remember.

So now you agree with me, in contradiction to what you have been saying before? That giving Chechnya independence with threatens the Russian Federations coherence? Exactly my point, Russia knows that Chechnya should be independent, she has much as a case as Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, just Russia wants oil, and territorial integrity, regardless of Chechens wants.

We already discussed that Ukraine and Kazakstan had different constitutional rights from chechneya there are no ideas of chechneya being separated just like for any other part of the country which are needed for the country to function as a whole. (true for any other country)

Such fighters wouldn't be a issue in Chechnya if Russia granted her the independence she was seeking since 1991. Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been in Chechnya, Russia made this situation herself with the refusal and invasion Chechnya, rather then resolving it by peaceful democratic means like other advanced states.

Chechneya got its aoutonomy in 1996 (it was the end of the first chechen war) and russia withdrew its troops and was still financing most of its government plus money to reconstruct the damage. and what did it all end with?
3 years later they attacked Dagistan so it was the begining of the second checheniyan war because dagistan was being protected by Russia.

You can support this? Do you believe this, if so then it means shitake.

its not a matter of beleif its a matter of statistics. as a matter of beleif I beleive that wars are caused not by a majority of any nation but by small groups following their own interests. (power, money) It's a pitty that everything comes to such things.

Groznyy does not = Chechnya, Chechnya’s majority population is still Chechen. In Kazakhstan large cities have large, maybe even majority Russian populations. But the country is largely Kazakh, same applies to Chechnya. The difference being that one is independent and the other one is not. Demographically there simply is no case for Russia. About kicking Russians out that was wrong, but one must understand that invading a people who want independance it does seem logical to kick out your enemies, like Stalin did the Chechens in the late 40's.

First of all you started the talk about grozny not me I'm just proving my point. Russia is a very multi national country It's very hard to rip it up into different cultural groups because they are what make it up. take me as an example I'm half russian and half muslim and most of my family friends are jewish and many other ethnic groups. I am compleatly against what stalin did through out his reign. on the other hand chechen military (which were famous by their cruelty) were part of the relocation of jews from Gorgia under the same stalins ruling.

This is reminiscent of a kind of neo-anti-Semitism. Hatred or bias against a people for no verifiable reason. Are the blacks all on welfare too? Or the Jews super rich villains, or the Mexicans dirty? Sick, this is the mentality of modern Russia it seems.

I think what you are saying is pritty much a Cliche. as I already said many of the russian marages right now are multi ethnic as well as many of the cities.

Unless there is a fair and free referendum on Russian control no one can say this with any certainty. Why is Russia not allowing a plebiscite? Obviously b/c she will lose it.

this isnt a question to ME still, between 1996-1999 there was no presance of moscow in chechneya then the war started and even western countries didnt like the idea of a referendum in a state of war

I think people would rather want to live free under their own rule then that of a foreign power. You cannot enforce your ethos and morals on ppl who don't want them, and you might think like imperialists do that you are doing the Chechens a favour, you aren't.

excuse me russia isnt a FOREIGN POWER in chechneya or to the same extent as england in scottland and wales and certainly not to the extent as America in Iraq.

I apologise for spewing ignorance all over you, but that dos'nt mean you dont do it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine had the right to leave the USSR just like the other 14 republics who made up the country.

Show me the clause in the Soviet Constitution that gave these regions the right to secede from the Kremlin?

No part of russia has the constitutional right to leave russia as a country (the same is true for any state of the United States.) (and in most other countries a province cant seporate from the country constitutionally.)

No part of Canada's constitution allows for the separation of a state either, but we allow a referendum to decide the fate of the nation. Russia is supposed to be a advanced state, if Russia was so good to live in then why no independent, and fair referendum on Chechen sovereignty? If (as you claim) the ppl of Chechnya want to live in Russia then why not allow a referendum to confirm this? Russia according to you has nothing to fear, and nothing to lose, and it close the case once and for all.

We already discussed that Ukraine and Kazakstan had different constitutional rights from chechneya there are no ideas of chechneya being separated just like for any other part of the country which are needed for the country to function as a whole.
I would still like to see that clause in the Soviet constitution firstly; if it does exist then you got a point. But there is a problem, Chechnya declared her independence in 1991 when the USSR was still in existence, now that questions Russian control over Chechnya, since she declared independence in 1991 and Russia come into existence in 1992 can one really say that Chechnya is part of Russia? Legally she is arbitrarily part of Russia, but it is questionable.

Chechneya got its aoutonomy in 1996 (it was the end of the first chechen war) and russia withdrew its troops and was still financing most of its government plus money to reconstruct the damage. and what did it all end with?

Again you don't seem to understand that your imperialist measures in Chechnya don't change the fact that they are independent. You could pour billions in there, as long as they are subdued into a servantile position to Moscow who dictates what to do with their valuable oil wealth, and geo-political position, I wouldn't expect anything but rebellion against Moscow. Imperialism simply does not work, and bombing the shit out of Groznyy and raping the country side, putting Chechens into badly fed camps in Ingushetia doesn't help the Russian cause.

3 years later they attacked Dagistan so it was the begining of the second checheniyan war because dagistan was being protected by Russia.

They shouldn't have done that because it was not their territory and it was not in contention. But a flare up would eventually happen again, I always believe peace leads to more war later on, unless one inflicts total defeat on the other. This time it is worse for Russia the initial war was very much a Chechen-Russian affair, now it is international Islam- Russia affair. The more Russia stays in Chechnya the worse it will get for her, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. should teach Russia a lesson. It is unfortunate but if Russians don't like terrorism, they would have to rethink their position in Chechnya.

its not a matter of beleif its a matter of statistics.

Oh that's very good then, may you show these stats please, thank you. As of right now though you are talking BS.

as a matter of beleif I beleive that wars are caused not by a majority of any nation but by small groups following their own interests. (power, money) It's a pitty that everything comes to such things.

Tis’ true, but listen if you are a leader sometimes the "Ends justify the Means".

First of all you started the talk about grozny not me I'm just proving my point.

Yes I did talk of Groznyy, you were the one who lied about Groznyy.

Russia is a very multi national country It's very hard to rip it up into different cultural groups because they are what make it up.

I think it is only fair if one group doesn't want to be ruled by Russians they should have the right to secede; same logic is applied to European de-colonization throughout the world. Russia is a vestige of a age long past, and she is now paying for it.

I think what you are saying is pritty much a Cliche. as I already said many of the russian marages right now are multi ethnic as well as many of the cities.

What you wrote does not indicate this multi-ethnic cohesiveness, isn't neo-fascism on the rise there as well?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9808/01/russia.fascism/


this isnt a question to ME still, between 1996-1999 there was no presance of moscow in chechneya then the war started and even western countries didnt like the idea of a referendum in a state of war

The referendum could have been done even before 1994, Russia started the first war by her invasion of the territory when all that was needed was merely a referendum on the state of affairs, but you know as well as I do that Russia would lose. Thus indicating that Chechens don't want to be under Russian control. I highly doubt this has changed, I believe Chechen nationalism may have gotten a raise out of this.


excuse me russia isnt a FOREIGN POWER in chechneya or to the same extent as england in scottland and wales and certainly not to the extent as America in Iraq.

Russia is a foreign power, because:

i) Chechnya was independent before the Russians invaded *1834 - 1859 Imamate of Ichkeria (capital Vedeno)
*
ii) Chechnya was annexed; if it were Russian it would not have been annexed.
iii) Chechens aren't Russian, thus Russians are foreign.

I apologise for spewing ignorance all over you, but that dos'nt mean you dont do it yourself.

I accept your apology, it was nicely done. And secondly I don't claim to be an expert on this anyways, so it means little.
 
CONSTITUTION (FUNDAMENTAL LAW) OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

As Amended to January 1, 1964



Chapter 1

THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Article 1
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and
peasants.

Article 2
The political foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the Soviets of Working People's
Deputies, which grew and became strong as a result of the overthrow of the
power of the landlords and capitalists and the conquest of the dictatorship of
the proletariat...

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/ussr64.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's very nice, I will not read it unfortunately. I asked you to merely show me the clause not the entire thing. Please show me the clause. It sure is a awful waste of Forum space.
 
article 13 onwards I think , but I'm not going to read it for you unfortunatley I have no time for this anymore, maybe next month when my exams are over.

but about the referendum the referendum was the problem of the president who ran off into chechneya and decided to say they all want to part from russia but that same president for some reason didnt want to run a referendum and present it to the kremlin.
he very well knew that if he ran a referendum he might have not won it.

I'll be back on the forums in a while, I need to study :( .
 
Last edited:
heh ural and siberia splintering off is beyond insane in my view...

when someone blows up your house talking is the farthest thing
from your mind... Its easier for europeans/americans look on and
say bad bad bad sit talk it out solve things... Sometimes things
have to be solved by the sword in order to become peaceful
afterwards...
 
well maybe not siberia, but there was a thing about ural wanting to split off, no one took it seriously.

this is officially my last post in the next 2 months. (unless I see somthing totaly outrageous)
 
Its easier for europeans/americans look on and
say bad bad bad sit talk it out solve things... Sometimes things
have to be solved by the sword in order to become peaceful
afterwards...

it's very easy to take a self-rhiteous moral higher ground when you don't have your rock concerts, theatres, metros, and apartment buildings blown up to pieces.
 
article 13 onwards I think , but I'm not going to read it for you unfortunatley I have no time for this anymore, maybe next month when my exams are over.

Ok but you must understand until you show me where you don't have a legal basis for your argument.

heh ural and siberia splintering off is beyond insane in my view...

Well not all of Siberia is going to splinter of course not. But the majority of the Russian settlement in that region straddles the Trans-Siberian railroad. Look at Tatarstan, or Mari, or other such "republics" in the industrial heartland near the Urals, they could very well want to secede from Russia if Chechnya does. Of course I don't believe that to be true now because now Russia economically is doing very well, and as long as economic stabilization exists these minority populations will be restive, but for how long?

it's very easy to take a self-rhiteous moral higher ground when you don't have your rock concerts, theatres, metros, and apartment buildings blown up to pieces.

Which is very true, but one has to remain in tune with their humanity, and sanity. Otherwise there would have been WWIII by now, so it's better to have principles then act like instinctual monkeys.
 
Which is very true, but one has to remain in tune with their humanity, and sanity. Otherwise there would have been WWIII by now, so it's better to have principles then act like instinctual monkeys.
in a place where there is no bombings and terrorism i am sure there si no need to stray from "humanity, and sanity"

but other places require minor adjustments

even in civilian life -
putting handcuffs on someone, wrestling him, stuffing him in a back seat of a car, it's all very immoral and violent and instinctual...
but that's what policing is all about. unless the criminals just stop commiting crimes, or willingly go to jail

instincts are good. without it, people would just continue not to do anything and be moving ducks
 
in a place where there is no bombings and terrorism i am sure there si no need to stray from "humanity, and sanity"

What I am saying is that places where such things exist, rational, logical, and compassionate human beings have to exist, and thrive so animalism doesn't flood the country into a bloodbath.

putting handcuffs on someone, wrestling him, stuffing him in a back seat of a car, it's all very immoral and violent and instinctual...

If the man is resisting arrest I can understand such actions, if the man is voluntarily doing those things, then of course it is immoral. Everything is subject to circumstance.

instincts are good. without it, people would just continue not to do anything and be moving ducks

Ah no, the opposite of instincts is logic and rationalism. People would be forced to actually think about the things they do. For instance smoking the only reason ppl do it is because of an instinctual thing, not a rational one. Rationally why would anyone want to risk lung cancer? Instincts are a excuse to be a moron.
 
u're right.
but what you call "instinctual" is not a simple instinct.

an instinctual reaction would have to be immidiate. not "the next day" immidiate. but "the next 2-3 seconds" immidiate

whatever the retaliation is it is an outcome of consultations.
you calling it "instinctual reaction" is basically saying that you think they didn't give it enough thought.
subjective, no?

at any rate, if people don't react to circumstance then they have no mental process going at all.


If the man is resisting arrest I can understand such actions
it is the equivalent of terrorist organizations not giving up.

you see, the cop has to respond with force. to protect himself and the population. sure it involves violence but by politely asking the robber (doing the moral and humane thing, supposedly) will not get the job done.

in fact, by not acting with full force, the cop would be commiting an immoral act because the robber / killer would get away and other people will be injured.

in the same way, if the government does not respond to the terrorist threat, it is an immoral government that risks further death to its citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top