Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. calls for diplomacy with Chechens

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Kadie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:30 PM
Original message
U.S. calls for diplomacy with Chechens
U.S. calls for diplomacy with Chechens

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer


Last Updated: September 7, 2004, 10:57:00 AM PDT


WASHINGTON AP) - The Bush administration differed Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that only a political settlement could end the crisis between Russia and the breakaway region of Chechnya.
The administration also left open the possibility of U.S. meetings with Chechens who are not linked to terrorists.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage signed a book of condolences at the Russian Embassy over the deaths of at least 330 people, most of them children, during a hostage-taking last week at a school in the southern city of Beslan.

snip...
"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" the Guardian quoted Putin as saying sarcastically.

"You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?"

more...
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1629644p-9332625c.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well I guess their terrorist victims
aren't to be considered as important as ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. No, there's just a big difference
between someone who's actually fighting for something (independence in the Chechen case) and someone who simply wants to annihilate you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Are you saying Osama wants to 'annihilate' us?
He had a lot of things on his wish list (US troops out of Saudi Arabia, ending US support for the Royal Family, etc), but annihilation of the US wasn't on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. You sure about that?
Gee, I could've sworn "death to U.S." came out of him mouth in various forms on several occasions... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russian33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Are you implying he just wants to kill Americans for the fun of it?
Yeah, with that mentallity the war on 'terra' will never end...they don't hate us 'cause we have freedoms and women can vote', there are roots to the problem (just like with Chechnya situation).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I didn't say there weren't roots to the problem.
Perhaps I should have phrased my statement differently, and I apologize that I was not more clear. Fighting for one's independence is a MUCH MUCH different goal than that of al Qaeda's. What the Chechen rebels did was atrocious in the worst way (though not very different from the tactics some of the groups our allies support, namely Israel). However, to lump them in the same group with al Qaeda, a group who prior to 9/11, had the Taliban Afghanistan under their control and was not fighting for the basic right form their own government and create laws according to their own set of values and norms, is not appropriate. al Qaeda is not fighting for any rights. al Qaeda just wants to impose their will on someone else. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between those two. The only thing al Qaeda and the Chechens are linked by are horrible, deplorable tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calico Jack Rackham Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
40. Those aren't Chechen rebels
Edited on Wed Sep-08-04 06:33 AM by Companero
They are terrorists plain and simple. Any credibility that the Chechens had in their fight for independence was lost a long time ago in the early 90's, when they allowed Muslim fundies to take over their cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Oh yeah, I'm sure.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a3.htm

Changes in the al-Qa’ida Message, 1992 to 2001

Through a detailed analysis of bin Ladin’s written documents and interviews, it is clear that the scope of al-Qa’ida ’s doctrine, the methods endorsed to achieve its purpose, and the popular political appeal it seeks to generate have all changed since 1992. In regard to al-Qa’ida’s target of criticism, bin Ladin started his mission with a focus on the Saudi regime and its subservience to American forces. Since then, his belligerency toward the United States has grown and his advocacy against the United States has become more prominent. At the same time, his proposed attack against the Saudi regime has become a less frequently stated priority.

In his 1996 Declaration of War that was issued after his expulsion from the Sudan, after offering praise to Allah, bin Ladin immediately launched into a global list of wrongs committed by the "Zionist-Crusaders alliance" against the Muslim people from Iraq to Palestine to Chechnya to Bosnia.(29) While the declaration was replete with graphic threats to the United States, these threats did not characterize the content of the first section of the Declaration of War. Instead, the specifics of the Saudi regime’s treachery, its compliance with the enemy, and the effect that these actions had on the Saudi people were the true emphasis of the first part of the document. Bin Ladin attacked the regime’s religious behavior and accused it of reversing the principles of Sharia, "humiliating the Umma, and disobeying Allah."(30) Such an emphasis on the Saudi regime is not as clear in later interviews and in his second fatwa, issued in February of 1998.

Throughout the Declaration of War, the belief that all power and acquisition of power can only occur through God was repeated continuously. The Saudi regime, according to bin Ladin, violated this premise through its compliance with the United States, its arrest of prominent scholars and activists, and its disregard for the reforms put forth by the July 1992 "glorious Memorandum of Advice."(31) Bin Ladin’s declaration outlined the complaints of the memorandum, which include: the intimidation of religious officials, the regime’s arbitrary departure from Sharia, the state of the press, the forfeiture of human rights, the government’s corruption, the poor state of the economy and social services, and an army that could not defend the country and which ultimately led to the American occupation.(32)

Expanding on these complaints, the declaration listed economic problems such as the depreciation of the Saudi currency, high foreign debt, and inflation. Bin Ladin accused the royal family of pursuing an oil policy that suited the American economy and not Saudis or the Gulf states. He emphasized the importance of protecting Saudi oil as it is "a great Islamic wealth and a large economic power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state."(33)

These complaints regarding internal Saudi Arabian conditions tried to appeal to popular sentiment, as they demanded an improved political, spiritual, and economic situation for the Saudi people. Moreover, bin Ladin blamed the regime as religiously failed, unjust, and labeled it "the agent" of the "American-Israeli alliance."(34) The declaration actually stated that to "use man-made law instead of the Sharia and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten ‘voiders’ that would strip a person of his Islamic status" and make him a non-believer.(35)

Based on a comparison with the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, where Abd al-Salam Faraj declared Sadat to be a non-believer,(36) bin Ladin justified similar action against the Saudi regime and its backers. With this declaration of war, he called violence against the regime and the United States in Riyadh and Khobar the "volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the severe oppression" and the suffering from "excessive iniquity, humiliation, and poverty."(37) He presented a situation in which the regime was a transgressor and he and his supporters were religious correctors.

In contrast to previous declarations, the February 23, 1998 fatwa was more global in its focus. Aside from the primary objection to the occupation of the land of the two holy places, there was no emphasis on the failures of the Saudi regime and the internal difficulties of Saudi society. The fatwa’s tone was set from one of its first lines, a citation from the Koran, "Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them."(38) After stating the previously mentioned American crimes of the occupation of the holy places, the war on the Iraqi people, and the support of Jewish aggressions, bin Ladin asserted that the United States had declared war on God. The language of the document shifted the emphasis of responsibility to the United States for dictating policy to the Saudi regime and other local rulers.

Because of the 1998 fatwa’s exclusive focus on the United States, the 1996 Declaration of War’s detail concerning local and practical problems is interesting. The 1996 document clearly asserted the guilt of the United States in regard to creating such domestic problems, but was more critical of the Saudi regime for allowing such American influence and transgressions. While U.S. offenses were given definite attention, it seemed as if bin Ladin was more concerned with rectifying the situation in Saudi Arabia, starting with the expulsion of U.S. forces and the reform of the government in an Islamic manner.

It is possible that the Saudi regime was more of a direct threat to bin Ladin and his supporters in 1996 and that he judged religious reform there still possible or the regime’s overthrow relatively easier. The 1996 declaration perhaps also reflected his recent clashes and humiliation by the Saudi regime. Two years later, he seems to have concluded that only by striking directly at the United States could he mobilize popular support and convince Arab regimes to overlook his operations in those countries or their neighbors’ lands. This shift in emphasis between overthrowing Arab governments and prioritizing attacks on the West also had happened with earlier Arab revolutionary movements, such as the Nasserists, Ba’thists, and neo-Marxist groups.

In addition to a different focus of blame, the spectrum of targets also evolved in the period between the two "fatwas." In a March 1997 interview with CNN, bin Ladin emphasized the importance of driving Americans from all Muslim countries. When questioned about the target of the jihad, bin Ladin stated that the jihad is aimed against "soldiers in the country of the Two Holy Places," not against the "civilians in America."(39) He explained that the special nature of the holy places required American civilians to leave the country, but they were not targeted for killing.

This contrasts with both bin Ladin’s 1998 fatwa and his ABC interview in which he called for violence to punish the United States and Israel. In the February 1998 fatwa, he stated that any Muslim wishing the rewards of God must adhere to the order to "kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."(40) The fatwa declared that:

To kill the Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who is able, in any country where this is possible, until the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Haram Mosque are freed from their grip and until their armies, shattered and broken winged, depart from all the lands of Islam.

In the 1998 ABC interview, bin Ladin reiterated the inclusion of American civilians as targets for the jihad. He stated, "We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They are all targets."(41) If the American "people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them that can protect their interests."(42) Bin Ladin continued, "Any American who pays taxes to his government is our target because he is helping the American war machine against the Muslim nation."(43)

Bin Ladin justified what the West called "terror" and the killing of civilians as permissible since the victims of such actions are not true victims. "Terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property."(44) In 1998, he told ABC News that Americans are "the worst thieves in the world today, and the worst terrorists."(45) Bin Ladin took issue with being called a terrorist. In the same interview, he said, they have "compromised our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists."

Aside from the factors mentioned above, bin Ladin’s decision to expand the scope of al-Qa’ida’s targets might also have been a response to U.S. pressure to capture him and combat his organization because of earlier attacks. It is also possible that bin Ladin wanted to sanction actions such as the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania so as not to inhibit the planning of future attacks and to encourage attacks that had a greater chance for success due to their softer nature as civilian targets.

Bin Ladin’s statements since the September 11 attacks demonstrate a further change in the al-Qa’ida message. In his October 7 message he shuffled al-Qa’ida’s priorities to maximize political appeal in the Arab and Muslim world by emphasizing the issue most likely to enhance his popular following in the Arab World, the Palestinian struggle. He also tried to capture the hearts of the Muslim world by raising new issues such as Kashmir.

In his al-Jazeera statement of October 7, bin Ladin’s first mention of political issues was to accuse, "U.S. arrogance and Jewish persecution" of humiliating the "entire nation" of Islam and committing the most "heinous actions and atrocities" of "perpetrated murders, torture, and displacement." While these were not new accusations, bin Ladin referred to the killing of the Palestinian boy Muhammad al-Durrah before any mention of such previously emphasized issues as those of U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia and military actions against Iraq.

As before, though, bin Ladin was demanding that Muslims choose between supporting al-Qa’ida--and thus taking the side of God--or being both apostates and henchmen of the West, collaborators in the murdering of Muslims. By not allowing ambiguities, he defined al-Qa’ida as the representative of Islam and America as crusaders bent on a religious war. In his November 3 statement, bin Ladin demanded that all Muslims oppose the U.S. war on Afghanistan, saying his cause was "fundamentally religious...a question of faith." He called the attacks on Afghanistan, "the most ferocious, serious, and violent Crusade campaign against Islam ever since the message was revealed to Mohammad." He dismissed the leaders of Islamic countries that supported the Western campaign as illegitimate representatives of their nations.

In the October 7 statement, bin Ladin only twice raised the issue of foreign soldiers in Saudi Arabia. The first time was more than halfway through the statement when he called on these forces to leave the Arabian Peninsula or the land "will be set on fire under their feet." He mentioned what previous statements called the greatest American transgression a second time in al-Qa’ida’s summary of demands. Considering its previous emphasis, American retreat from the Arabian Peninsula was remarkably only demanded after retreat from Afghanistan, cessation of aid to "the Jews in Palestine," and termination of sanctions on Iraqis. The call to stop helping Hindus against Muslims in Kashmir was the only issue that fell below it in the chronology of his statement. The mention of the issue of Kashmir was significant, though, as it was prioritized among the core list of demands for the first time and was meant to drive the Pakistani street against the Pakistani government. In addition, in bin Ladin’s November 3 statement, he highlighted claims of abuses inflicted upon Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya, East Timor, the Philippines, the Sudan, and Somalia, a further indicator of his effort to win popular appeal among Muslims far beyond the Arab world alone.

-------------------------------------------
I didn't see the words 'death to America' or 'annihilate' anywhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. That's all well and good
but none of those are OBL's words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
29. Please educate yourself on the source and history of the conflicts that
give rise to these incidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
43. you first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. What a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
Why didn't we negotiate with Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truhavoc Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. I guess only we can determine who are terrorists
If anything like what happened to Russia happened to us, there is absolutely no doubt that they would be declared as terrorists. This is absurd and just undermining our relationship with the world even further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is a LONG STANDING DOUBLE STANDARD that...
the U.S Government has had reguarding such crims committed overseas.

Only the U.S should be allowed use military force to solve it's disputes.

John (Baby Killer) McCain "justified" these acts by saying that Russia's treatment of the Chechens lead to this!

:puke:

How bad it that! John McCain is Satan!!!
Maybe there was something to Bush's 2000 smears against McCain. Maybe he is insane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. They said WHAT?!?!?!?
:wtf:

I thought he'd encourage ol' Pooty-poot to smoke 'em out of their caves n' bring 'em to justice, especially after all the time he spent analyzing his Kremlin counterpart's soul.

Another head-scratcher from the Hypocri-Chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. looks like a flip-flop to me
http://www.worldwar3report.com/chechnya.html

Predictably, the events of September 11 gave the Bush administration the green light to be more honest about the US policy towards Chechnya. The administration now claims an al-Qaeda link to the Chechen rebels, while declaring Russia an "ally in the War on Terrorism." The US needed help from Russia to gain access to Central Asian countries and air corridors to conduct the 2001 war in Afghanistan.

Later, the invasion of Iraq again created tensions between the US and Russia, as Russia had a long-standing relationship with Saddam's Iraq. However, as the second largest exporter of petroleum in the world, and a non-OPEC counterbalance to the oil producers of the Middle East and Venezuela, Russia is an ally the US does not want to alienate. The Bush administration now openly supports the Russian campaign in Chechnya, and the US State Department has added Chechen rebel Shamil Basaev to their international terrorist list. Now Basaev, like everyone else on the list, is considered a "threat" to the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russian33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. This article is a bit outdated...April 2004
US recently granted political asylum to the 'Treasurer' of Basaev's group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. flopping like a fish on the deck?
talking one way and then another and then another - still sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

How many times can *Co change its stance and never have a question raised?

Today they advocate "diplomacy", yesterday they did not - tomorrow ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sistersofmercy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
47. That's exactly what I thought, "They said what!"
Yes it is another head-scratcher brought to us by The Smirk* and Sneer Show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. The so-called Chechens
involved in this were of various nationalities and are possibly a front group for MI6, CIA and Mossad, just as the Russian general said yesterday.

Until you can prove they are not to Putin, you will get nowhere with him. And proving a negative is pretty hard to do. Just ask Saddam Hussein. He kept saying he didn't have any WMDs and we kept saying "prove it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russian33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. That's rich.
How is this any different from Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden's group attacking us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. rewarding the child-killers
won't this send a message that child-killing "works?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlemingsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. It ain't killing if there is a American flag on the uniform
That's freedom and democracy bursting your head open.

God Ble$$ America, and only America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. But wouldn't that be negotiating with terrorists? Funny when the shoe's on
the other foot, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
21. Freedom Fighters do not slaughter children by the hundreds.
In some cases for no better reason than they were bored.

No question these are terrorists of the lowest order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. Bartender, pour me another double standard, please.
Edited on Tue Sep-07-04 02:49 PM by stickdog
You know, the usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MallRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. BUSH THINKS PUTIN SHOULD NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS?!?!?!
HOLY SHIT.

This is a meatball... a hanging slider, right over the plate, Senator Kerry.

Kerry has to HIT THIS MOTHERFUCKER OUT.. OF... THE... PARK.

-MR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. I just read this and posted it on a bush loving forum
The topic isn't politics, but people are talking about this and saying how strong Dubya is and how Putin should slam back.

I posted this link as a FYI with no other commentary (other than a shocked emoticon).

Felt good to expose some hypocrisy, seeing Rush and that ilk aren't going to report on this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. There's more. Bush is harboring terrorists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=762223&mesg_id=762223

"Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement."


Maybe Kerry should shove this down Bush's throat until he croaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Do you have information about Mr Akhmadov or are calling him a terrorist
merely because he is a Chechen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. According to this report
he is "the 'foreign minister' (quotes not mine) of the Chechen separatist movement". If he is indeed that then he has represented/harbored/supported/enabled/promoted separatist terrorists even if he has not personally committed terrorist acts, a distinct possibility I would not rule out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Not all separatists are automatically terrorists
Some Chechen separatists have certainly committed terrorist acts, and if Mr Akhmadov were responsible for such acts or had defended them in public, then he would indeed be a terrorist himself. In that case the U.S. should not have granted him asylum.

I don't think, however, that the information contained in the article is sufficient to make such a judgment.

Putin wants to paint all Chechen separatists as terrorists and many Chechens deny the obvious links of some separatists to al-Qaeda. In my opinion, both sides are equally wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. That's a given.
See post #37.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aidoneus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Maybe you should look into what you're talking about
before speaking like that. If you knew the slightest bit about the man, you'd know how insane that sounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. You know him?
Then tell me he is/was powerless to stop separatist rebels from committing acts of terror (eventually against hundreds of children). That's like saying Bush can do nothing to stop Swiftnut ads and Yasser Arafat can do nothing to stop suicide bombers. You would grant asylum to Moqtada Al-Sadr while his comrades are outside in the street killing U.S. soldiers simply because he is not the one pulling the trigger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. To think that all Chechens are terrorists is clearly wrong.
It is equally wrong to deny that some Chechen groups have links to al-Qaeda.

Diplomacy with those Chechen groups that condemn terrorism. No negotiations with Chechen terrorists who are linked to al-Qaeda.

That is also the position of the European Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
27. Check out the CNN poll here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Owlet Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. To me, the most interesting thing about Putin's position
... is that he spent nearly FOUR HOURS explaining it to Western journalists.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/07/putin.us/index.html

"MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that mid-level officials in the U.S. government were undermining his country's war on terrorism by supporting Chechen separatists, whom he compared to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

'''''

In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person."

Well, I don't agree with his assessment of AssScratcher Bush, but I can't see our Prez giving 4 hours of his time to explain anything. Hell, even the 911 Commission had to beg the guy for a lousy hour, and only got that by agreeing that Co-President Cheney could sit in, too, in case George forgot the script.

I guess we chalk it up to differences in leadership style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
31. This Should Please Putin - NOT! Remember, Putin Thinks We're Meddlin'
I'm sure we are...Way to build and maintain those alliances Chimpy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. I think they're trying to give Putin a coronary...
What a diabolical plan...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
33. Thanks a lot. Now I need a new Irony meter.
This last one was advertised as "extra strength", but it up and exploded the second I pointed it at that headline. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
35. And yet the RW talk shows are saying...
"That why people love Bush - They know he is the only candidate that will kill the terrorists"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
38. Russia calls for US diplomacy with Posse Comitatus
Hmm....don't think that would fly here. Nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
42. Unfrigginbelievable.
This is just... incomprehensible.

I haven't believed in an Iraq-al Qaeda connection for a long time, but I've always taken it for granted that the al Q financial network has been backing the Chechens. Their situation coincides perfectly with the al Qaeda mmission, which is the overthrow of godless regimes and their replacement with Islamic ones ( http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm ).

And Putin sounds pissed off enough to serve the United States a nice cup of shut the fuck up by proving it, either by re-releasing http://cdi.org/russia/johnson/6031-1.cfm">tapes already known to exist or new information which further confirms that relationship.

What does this say about America's prosecution of the War on Terra? That we're utterly incompetent? That our foreign policy is coming apart at the seams? That there is no longer any effective oversight over virtually autonomous segments of the executive branch?

Four more years of this crap and we'll be busting rocks for the Chinese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
44. Are we trying to start a new Cold War or win the Ironic BS Award?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Papa Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
45. Maybe the reason is that the Bush gang is scared Russia is going to
start attacking countries like they did. I heard on the radio this morning or cable tv that Putin said they would strike anywhere in the world to go after the terrorists.

Maybe Russia might invade Iran before we do. Wouldn't the neo-cons be pissed! I certainly hope it does not happen but these are crazy times.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Russia actually gets along with Iran quite well
Edited on Wed Sep-08-04 09:16 AM by htuttle
Iran does not get along with Chechen/Afghani-type 'mujahadeen' at all. They are Shiite, and Al Queda, Inc declared all Shiites heretics some time ago.

The world is really a lot more complicated than Rumsfeld lets on -- perhaps more complex than he even understands.

If Russia is going to pressure anybody in Central Asia, it's going to be Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC