Rebels' dilemma after Basayev death

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chechnya
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 120
  • Views Views 15K
But the World can support the Bombings of thousands of Muslim women and children who are massacred and yet where are the world outcrys? 650,000 killed in Iraq, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Over Tens of thousands of women and children in Afghanistan, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Yet they teach this is Democracy (Liberation in a Kaffir way).


That is something I've been trying to explain earlier I mean 300 people die and for 3 years people have been talking about it everyday but on the other side 300 000 people have died so far and it's been going on for 15 years and the world is silent. That is something I don't understand.
 
And if i started a post challenging the Kuffar Actions, Somehow a Person would come and say No Akhi nononono This is unislamic, but when the kuffar bash against my Mujahideen brothers, they tolerate it.
 
That is something I can't stand. Defending ourselves is unislamic?? Since when? Where in the Qu'ran does it say that I must let people torture me for years and not dare say a word about it.
 
do not hate the Chechens, I hate the rebels. The people who authorized and participated on the attack on Beslan are just as bad as the Russians that oppress the Chechens. Now, just so you don't jump on me for being pro-Russia, I DO support the Chechnian movement for independence, but not the way they go about getting that independence.

Since the official elected Chechen goverment had no hand in Beslan - condemned it and said it would put the people behind it on trial as soon as the war was over - and in fact has NEVER carried out an act of aggression against Russian civilians in over a decade of this war, it would be silly to lump all "rebels" together.

Do you support the official "rebel" movement which was headed by Aslan Maskhadov and is now headed by president Dokku Umarov?

Im just trying to understand where you stand on all this.
 
But the World can support the Bombings of thousands of Muslim women and children who are massacred and yet where are the world outcrys? 650,000 killed in Iraq, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Over Tens of thousands of women and children in Afghanistan, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Yet they teach this is Democracy (Liberation in a Kaffir way).

Neither Count DeSheep or myself are "the World". Speaking for myself, this arguement that you have brought up is meaningless, I have never expressed any support of anyone being bombed anywhere.
By the way, your numbers are extremely exaggerated. For example; 650,000 in Iraq? Not even close. Not that I support anyone involved in that war, but let's keep it real, please.

That is something I've been trying to explain earlier I mean 300 people die and for 3 years people have been talking about it everyday but on the other side 300 000 people have died so far and it's been going on for 15 years and the world is silent. That is something I don't understand.
I don't know anybody that talks about it ever. The only reason that we talk about it here is that you brought it up, and in particular, you defended those pig dogs that took the school children hostage. That is sure to get people talking.

And if i started a post challenging the Kuffar Actions, Somehow a Person would come and say No Akhi nononono This is unislamic, but when the kuffar bash against my Mujahideen brothers, they tolerate it.
If your mujahideen brothers are those b******s that took the school children hostage, then you should expect bashing. They don't deserve to be spoken of in the same sentence as human beings. Anyone that would use children's lives as bargaining chips is a disgusting animal.
 
Neither Count DeSheep or myself are "the World". Speaking for myself, this arguement that you have brought up is meaningless, I have never expressed any support of anyone being bombed anywhere.
By the way, your numbers are extremely exaggerated. For example; 650,000 in Iraq? Not even close. Not that I support anyone involved in that war, but let's keep it real, please.


I don't know anybody that talks about it ever. The only reason that we talk about it here is that you brought it up, and in particular, you defended those pig dogs that took the school children hostage. That is sure to get people talking.

If your mujahideen brothers are those b******s that took the school children hostage, then you should expect bashing. They don't deserve to be spoken of in the same sentence as human beings. Anyone that would use children's lives as bargaining chips is a disgusting animal.


Exaggerated?

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.


A man mourns his son Friday in Baqubah, a city north of Baghdad. The child died in random gunfire near a family home in the village of Khan Bani Saad.
A man mourns his son Friday in Baqubah, a city north of Baghdad. The child died in random gunfire near a family home in the village of Khan Bani Saad. (By Mohammed Adnan -- Associated Press)
Special Report
America at War


It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.

The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.

A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.

"The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."

Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Its Also apparent that you do not understand the Politics of what i have stated. Look at the current situation of Iraq, where are the world outcry's of the countless deaths of Iraqi civilians, what about the millions of children from Iraq who suffered in the early 90s from the uraninum depletion. Is this Justice? Where in the world are those who seek to help refuges, while they consume their own wealth.

So Again you did not believe claiming i "Extremely Exaggerated" now you can see it for yourself.

How come The United States can assist Ethiopia with air bombings in Somalia, where are the world staging their outcries.

The United States invasion of Iraq and both Afghanistan were Illegal under international law, since for 1) Al Qae the ALLLEGED mastermind's with no evidence found today linking them except a fake videotape made in some state. It is still a non governmental organization which means no invasion, yet the USA decided before and 9/11 to invade Afghanistan , Evidence provided...


US planned attack on Taleban before 11/9



A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before 11/09 attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
Source : BBC - Tuesday, 18 September, 2001
 
Exaggerated?

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.


A man mourns his son Friday in Baqubah, a city north of Baghdad. The child died in random gunfire near a family home in the village of Khan Bani Saad.
A man mourns his son Friday in Baqubah, a city north of Baghdad. The child died in random gunfire near a family home in the village of Khan Bani Saad. (By Mohammed Adnan -- Associated Press)
Special Report
America at War


It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.

The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.

A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.

"The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."

Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Its Also apparent that you do not understand the Politics of what i have stated. Look at the current situation of Iraq, where are the world outcry's of the countless deaths of Iraqi civilians, what about the millions of children from Iraq who suffered in the early 90s from the uraninum depletion. Is this Justice? Where in the world are those who seek to help refuges, while they consume their own wealth.

So Again you did not believe claiming i "Extremely Exaggerated" now you can see it for yourself.

How come The United States can assist Ethiopia with air bombings in Somalia, where are the world staging their outcries.

The United States invasion of Iraq and both Afghanistan were Illegal under international law, since for 1) Al Qae the ALLLEGED mastermind's with no evidence found today linking them except a fake videotape made in some state. It is still a non governmental organization which means no invasion, yet the USA decided before and 9/11 to invade Afghanistan , Evidence provided...


US planned attack on Taleban before 11/9



A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before 11/09 attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
Source : BBC - Tuesday, 18 September, 2001

If you wish to talk about your extensive exaggeration, then please start a thread, or post in one of the existing ones about Iraq. This thread is not about that.
I don't know why you post about the US, and Iraq, Ethiopia, taliban, etc. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with this thread or anything that I've said.
Talk about short attention span.
 
Hopefully a Chechen leader will emerge that will re-focus the nationalist aim of Chechen independence. I realize that Basayev was also concerned with Chechen independence, but his methods and those that followed him, seemed to mimic Islamic "jihad" to the point of painting themselves into a box. Make this conflict about independence, not religious zeal, and Chechnya will see true independence. Rightly or wrongly, the Chechens are seen as a terrorist entity now, not only because of Beslan, but the "jihad" nature of the propoganda vids and the increasing number of Arabs who have joined the cause. I know Muslims won't see it the same way I do, but I'm speaking from a detached political science prospective.

Down with Putin. That is another element that will see a fresh view on Chechnya. If Putin actually steps down when he is supposed to, and the Russian people actually elect a reformer, we could see an end to violence by 2010. That is alot of "ifs", but Russia is increasingly dumping its semi-democratic principles, and is quickly becoming something like the old Soviet system.
 
Since the official elected Chechen goverment had no hand in Beslan - condemned it and said it would put the people behind it on trial as soon as the war was over - and in fact has NEVER carried out an act of aggression against Russian civilians in over a decade of this war, it would be silly to lump all "rebels" together.

Do you support the official "rebel" movement which was headed by Aslan Maskhadov and is now headed by president Dokku Umarov?

Im just trying to understand where you stand on all this.

Umarov and Maskhadov are great men. They oppose what Basayev did in Beslan and it seems that their views on how to go about getting Chechnya free from Russia are similar, if not exactly the same, as my own. So I do support the official rebel movement headed by Maskhadov and now by Umarov.
 
But the World can support the Bombings of thousands of Muslim women and children who are massacred and yet where are the world outcrys? 650,000 killed in Iraq, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Over Tens of thousands of women and children in Afghanistan, where are the WORLD OUTCRYS, Yet they teach this is Democracy (Liberation in a Kaffir way).

The outcries are coming from the same type of people that call what happened at Beslan a horrible thing. I cannot speak for the entire planet, but there can't just be two of us, both miraculously on the same forum, that oppose what's been done by people on many different sides of these conflicts. The UN, the terrorists, and the former governments of the countries where these conflicts happen are all to blame.

Take note: UN forces do not walk into a crowded market place loaded down with explosives and blow themselves up. Terrorists do that--you know, the people that I oppose? Yes, there have been UN forces that rape and kill for no reason, and I oppose them as well. The UN has not done things the right way--just like the rebels in Beslan. They had a good thing in mind, I believe, but they went about doing it entirely the wrong way.
 
Why should the Chechens opt for nationalism? Whats wrong with our Muslim brothers and sisters fighting under the banner of Islam. If there is a strong Islamic influence there than that is a good thing. Maybe some actions like Beslen wont take place, I know that the right Islamic people will not allow this. most of the Chechen Islamic leaders would agree.
 
Last edited:
Why should the Chechens opt for nationalism?

The same reason the Native Americans opt for reservations: it was their land to began with. As far as I'm concerned, it still is, it's just being borrowed by people who don't like returning things. >=O
 
Last edited:
Umarov and Maskhadov are great men. They oppose what Basayev did in Beslan and it seems that their views on how to go about getting Chechnya free from Russia are similar, if not exactly the same, as my own. So I do support the official rebel movement headed by Maskhadov and now by Umarov.


Yes they were all great men except Umarov was always with Basayev and Maskhadov was a little on his own. Maskhadov always believed that it would be possible to negotiate with Russians and always spent a lot of time looking for solutions to have the Russians sit at a table and talk. But on the other side you had Basayev, Umarov and the rest who believed that the Russians would never negotiate and even if they did everyone saw what happened the last time when they negotiated so they were looking for military solutions and believed that the Russians had to be defeated and treated the hard way. Umarov was always Basayev's apprentice so he's going to continue what him and Basayev had been doing. There never was a separation between the rebels it's just that everyone had their own thoughts and were trying to come up with their own solutions, they had different ways of thinking. Umarov may take some much more extreme meausures than Basayev. I don't know I just think he might because Basayev had always been someone calm and quiet and always taking time to think whereas Umarov is known to be as someone aggresive and quick tempered.
 
I don't know I just think he[Umarov] might because Basayev had always been someone calm and quiet and always taking time to think whereas Umarov is known to be as someone aggresive and quick tempered.

That explains why Basayev attacked Beslan, while Umarov spoke out against it, right? I don't know a whole lot about them, but from what I can tell, Umarov is a military guy who fights the military of the enemy. Basayev, on the other hand, is a military guy willing to bring the fight to civilians if he thinks it'll end the war in his favor. But like I say, I don't know a whole lot about either of them, that's just my observation so far.
 
That explains why Basayev attacked Beslan, while Umarov spoke out against it, right? I don't know a whole lot about them, but from what I can tell, Umarov is a military guy who fights the military of the enemy. Basayev, on the other hand, is a military guy willing to bring the fight to civilians if he thinks it'll end the war in his favor. But like I say, I don't know a whole lot about either of them, that's just my observation so far.


Basayev has always been fighting the military and was the best at it. You probably don't know what he's managed to do because what he's achieved is incredible even the American military, which is supposed to be the best in the world, was amazed and couldn't manage to understand how he achieved what he did. Beslan happened once and it lasted only a few days but Basayev had brought enormous losses to the Russian military and he had been doing it for 15 years non stop.
 
Basayev has always been fighting the military and was the best at it. You probably don't know what he's managed to do because what he's achieved is incredible even the American military, which is supposed to be the best in the world, was amazed and couldn't manage to understand how he achieved what he did. Beslan happened once and it lasted only a few days but Basayev had brought enormous losses to the Russian military and he had been doing it for 15 years non stop.

Eh. Yes, you're right. I haven't looked this up myself, but I believe what you say. =D But me thinks Umarov is more better. Apparently, he doesn't look at civilians as another tool of war. Does he, teacher? XP
 
Eh. Yes, you're right. I haven't looked this up myself, but I believe what you say. =D But me thinks Umarov is more better. Apparently, he doesn't look at civilians as another tool of war. Does he, teacher? XP


LOL teacher. But Basayev was the best he was incredible and that's what a lot of Chechens think. Umarov, I have to admit, isn't very trusted because after the first war he used to be part of this group of criminals who went around kidnapping people and then letting them go for big amounts of money. Although Basayev used to always say that he talked a lot to Umarov, he taught him about Islam and how to be a good muslim and that Umarov used to keep repeating that he regrets what he did in the past. But people are still a little careful of him and don't trust him by 100%. He'll have to prove us that he really changed. But who knows I hope he really did become a good person.
 
Hopefully a Chechen leader will emerge that will re-focus the nationalist aim of Chechen independence. I realize that Basayev was also concerned with Chechen independence, but his methods and those that followed him, seemed to mimic Islamic "jihad" to the point of painting themselves into a box. Make this conflict about independence, not religious zeal, and Chechnya will see true independence. Rightly or wrongly, the Chechens are seen as a terrorist entity now, not only because of Beslan, but the "jihad" nature of the propoganda vids and the increasing number of Arabs who have joined the cause. I know Muslims won't see it the same way I do, but I'm speaking from a detached political science prospective.

Down with Putin. That is another element that will see a fresh view on Chechnya. If Putin actually steps down when he is supposed to, and the Russian people actually elect a reformer, we could see an end to violence by 2010. That is alot of "ifs", but Russia is increasingly dumping its semi-democratic principles, and is quickly becoming something like the old Soviet system.

And you have a problem with Islamic Jihad, that means you have a problem with Islam and just disrespected those who have strived in Jihad Fi Sabilillah, in cluding Rasooillah sws and his sahabas and other companions, so where are the moderators who ban?
 
And you have a problem with Islamic Jihad, that means you have a problem with Islam and just disrespected those who have strived in Jihad Fi Sabilillah, in cluding Rasooillah sws and his sahabas and other companions, so where are the moderators who ban?

need a kitkat so do i BREAK
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top