Your video, Time - What It’s Like to Grow Up Under Putin in Chechnya, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

I think the valid criticism against Putin being the one stating anything is CONTEXT. The charge is that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Putin is declaring the need for evidence and all manner of polite international discourse and patience that should be shown. The context is just where did Assad purchase nearly 90% of his military hardware, probably including his chemical weapon arsenal, and without a doubt the missiles and platforms used to deploy it? From none other than Putin, so of course Putin wants the burden of evidence to be set at beyond a shadow of a doubt, and wants it voted on unanimously by the UN security council, which he sits on and has reasonable confidence won't be having a unanimous vote he doesn't favor. I don't recall Putin demanding patience and a UN resolution on how to respond to Chechnya a few years back...

Islam is definitively associated with cliterectomies (Shafi law, the hadiths, etc). (NSFW medical photos.)

For example, in Egypt, 95% of married women have been subject to genital mutilation.

I guess on some issues, Coulter isn't as ignorant as ourselves



Chechnya surely has lower rates, but:
1. Chechnya still has primitive, violent attitudes toward women ("honor" killings).
2. Coulter is talking about Islamic culture in general, the same way the Boston bombings were intended to be on behalf of Islam in general, rather than on behalf of Chechnya alone.

Work to decrease stats like the 95% in Egypt, rather than pretending associations don't exist

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

Kuwait is a tiny country, and didn't have nearly the military that Iraq had because of US support of Iraq. Do you remember until he attacked Kuwait he was a big Ally, we loved him and supported him right through his greatest atrocities.

The Gulf War was just us rolling over them, it wasn't even a fight it was us flexing our muscles and a good sign to other countries not to step out of line. We then allowed Saddam to stay in power by letting him crush the resistance against him which was serious and would've most likely overthrown him. We imposed sanctions that were in the words of Dennis Halliday "Genocidal." And which when asked if killing 500,000 Iraqi children was ok Madeline Albright said "We think the price is worth it."

Iran isn't like Iraq at all, either before the Gulf War or Before the Iraq War. It's got a much more powerful and technological military. Also the US is simply not as powerful as it was. Remember the Gulf War was just after the Wall Fell, we were the worlds only super power. The Iraq War was against a basically helpless nation (even Kuwait wasn't afraid of them anymore), and we were stuck there for years, it was ridiculous how we fucked it up so amazingly. Russia in Chechnya is pissing themselves over how we fucked it up so badly. If David Petraeus could do what Putin did, he's probably be considered the greatest military man the US had ever seen.

I'm sorry but we cannot invade Iran like we did Iraq, simply because the world is changing too quickly. It's not going to happen, and if it does, you'll see a real uprising in the US. The OWS thing has more sympathy than people think, it's just bubbling under the surface. If it's given a huge cause the troops will have to be called back to the US to control the population.

Also contrary to popular belief Wars don't make money, they cost money. Preparing for War makes money, the Military Industrial complex wants to always be spending money Preparing for War and not having to fight one that would take significant resources, like getting bogged down in Iran.

I'm sorry but it's just nothing like the same thing going on. I don't think we're going to be invading Iran on the ground ever do to the change in the power system and the enemy.

So, Does RT do a single story on Russia? They are called Russian Times, but I have never seen them do any story on their own country. It all seems to be crap about the U.S.. Did they not just have a bombing in an airport there? Hows that Chechnya war going? How has Pooty been doing? Hows his little puppet Dmitry Medvedev working out? Have they Let the Chechnya Group that planned the bombing out yet so they can be captured or killed later with "embedded news people following along."?

"Russian Times, we don't know what the hell is going on in our own country, but we know a bunch of wrong things going on in the U.S."

oh this post just fucking pissed me off.
i have long refused to suckle at the giant teat of iranian propaganda,and what is happening to the common people who are protesting is egregious in its violence.maybe americans and british should pay attention,this might be foreshadowing.
on it own, this post would be noble,even praiseworthy,but to call americans cowards?
bold words coming from a panty waist sitting in his boxers typing on a keyboard.
sad thing is,i actually agree that consumerism=slavery.that most americans have no clue.
but thats not COWARDICE,thats IGNORANCE,get your nouns right dipshit.
so..
you wanna play "horror-troll" do ye?
ok..ill take your shooting and raise ya:
one "active-denial system" massacre of beit hanoun.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/11/13/us-officers-planned-the-beit-hanoun-massacre/
they used microwaves to do this..MICROWAVES..isreal+america,yet ask an american if he knows about this.ill tell ya..they dont.
do you think it is ONLY in iran,or palestine,chechnya,bosnia,somolia etc etc where horrendous violent acts against humans happens?
do you think america is soley responsible?
while america for the past 50 years has been the greatest aggregator of violence and bloodshed for global hegemony.you think they did it ALONE?
FUCK...your stupidity is making my brain hurt..how can you arbitrarily blame a countries people?
the network of elites who use their money,power and influence to perpetuate their own status quo at the cost of the majority is nothing new to human history.
for FUCKS sake boy! it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who stopped the vietnam war!!
but it was only when the truth of the war,fair and honest reporting,and the revelation of the gulf of tonkin came out.
so instead of sitting at your chair and feeling clever,maybe you should take the time to consider that you admonish a people who just DONT KNOW.
what i DO know is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
fuck this and fuck you..
cowards..phhht..
asshat ..l..

The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus, was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in which Russian federal forces largely recaptured the separatist region of Chechnya.

The Second Chechen War was started in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the IIPB, and the Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, although no evidence linking Chechens with the bombings has been released to the public. The campaign largely reversed the outcome of the First Chechen War, in which the region gained de facto independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Although it is regarded by many as an internal conflict within the Russian Federation, the war attracted a large number of Jihadist foreign fighters.

During the initial campaign, Russian military and pro-Russian Chechen paramilitary faced Chechen separatists in open combat, but eventually seized the Chechen capital Grozny in February 2000 after a winter siege. Russia established direct rule of Chechnya in May 2000 and after the full-scale offensive, Chechen guerrilla resistance throughout the North Caucasus region continued to inflict heavy Russian casualties and challenge Russian political control over Chechnya for several more years. Some Chechen rebels also carried out terrorist attacks against civilians in Russia. These terrorist attacks, as well as widespread human rights violations by Russian and rebel forces, drew international condemnation.

Russia has severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement, although violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus. Large-scale fighting has been replaced by guerrilla warfare and bombings targeting federal troops and forces of the regional government, with the violence more often spilling over into adjacent regions since 2005. The exact death toll from this conflict is unknown, yet estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead or missing, mostly civilians in Chechnya. No clear figures for Russian losses are known to the public. In spite of its large amount of casualties, both Chechen wars remain largely unpublicized abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

Russia for the last 8 years has benefited from America's war on terrorism, with high fluctuating oil prices and the stranglehold of gas supplies to Europe from central Asian states. Most of the economic growth was also from the maturation of many reforms passed under Yeltsin. Putin's strong stance against Chechnya and dismantling of oligarchy wins favour with the Russian public. Anything is possible for the people of Russia as long as they do not think of becoming involved politically against the Putin's KGB cadre.

However with the economy now entering recession people's lives will be affected, Putin froze the prices before elections earlier in the year, dissent would rise as the illusion of economic growth now fades and change is pushed for. The Kremlin will come down hard on anybody who will start to resist. This is the reality of State Managed Democracy in Russia.

More:
The Rise of Pro-Putin Youth
Putin Warns Countries Not To Interfere With Russian Affairs
Why Democracy: Russia's Village of Fools
ex-KGB spy speaking against Putin shortly before his death
Real News: Eric Margolis comments on Putin and Russia's Duma
Russians back Putin, Russian Elections deemed a 'farce'
Suppression of Opposition Groups in Russia
Putin's Message to the West
Death of a Nation: Russia in 2006 by Marcel Theroux
Kasparov on Maher--Being Very Clever
Panorama - The poisoning of Litvinenko
Russians mark Anna Politkovskaya's Murder

DEC 14 2008 MOSCOW— The Russian police detained dozens of antigovernment protesters attempting to hold an unsanctioned rally in Moscow on Sunday.

Police officers and armored riot control personnel prevented the planned protest in central Moscow from materializing, in the latest sign that public expression of dissent against the authorities would not be tolerated under President Dmitri A. Medvedev any more than it had been under his predecessor, Vladimir V. Putin.

As many as 100 people were detained, including Eduard Limonov, the head of the banned National Bolshevik Party, said a spokeswoman for Other Russia, a coalition of opposition groups led by Mr. Limonov and the former chess champion Garry Kasparov, among others. The police said that about 10 people were detained during a similar protest in St. Petersburg, Interfax reported.
The Moscow demonstration was meant as a protest of the Kremlin’s handling of the financial crisis and its plans to change the Constitution to extend presidential and parliamentary term limits. Government critics say such a move could be used to extend the authority of Mr. Putin, who is now prime minister, and possibly lead to his early return to the presidency.

Mr. Putin, while he has said Mr. Medvedev will remain president until his term ends in 2012, has not ruled out running for a third term after that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/world/europe/15russia.html?_r=1

And for future Islam invocations, gwaan's intent for the old collective was painfully clear:

"This collective is dedicated to celebrating the rich tapestry of Islamic culture - from the Moorish heritage of Andalusia to the Sufi traditions of China. It is a place for celebrating the languages, cultures, traditions, musics, and arts of all Islamic peoples. It hopes to show the other side of Islamic countries like Iran, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - the side rarely shown by Western media. It also aims to dispel the oft-repeated myth of a 'clash of civilizations' and expose those in politics and media who cultivate this myth in order to achieve certain political objectives. Finally, it is a place for discussing the key theological, social, and political issues which dominate the Islamic world: Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, US foreign policy, British foreign policy, imperialism, democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state, Islamic law - interpretation and legal authority, women's rights, minorities' rights, Islamic identity in the West, the public image of Islam, the future of Islam.

From time to time I'll post some important news stories from/concerning the Islamic world which will appear in the comments section of the collective."


I miss gwaan. I miss me.

Yeah, but pretty much everyone knows it's Osettian freedom to organise a "democratic" and "fair" vote to join the glorious Empire of Russia they're fighting for. South Osettia couldn't even support itself economically (no real industry/agriculture), there's nothing there, mostly rocks. Abkhazia, on the other hand, could take cue from Moldova and actually be self-sufficient, mainly via tourism, cause it's got vinyards, beaches and spas. But Russia will probably annex it, too, as Kremlin's already got their sights set on Crimea.

>> ^cybrbeast:
Well, Russia is hypocritical for the reason stated in the clip. Russia has been fighting against the independence of Chechnya for many years, now they say South Ossetia should be allowed to become independent.

Well, Russia is hypocritical for the reason stated in the clip. Russia has been fighting against the independence of Chechnya for many years, now they say South Ossetia should be allowed to become independent.

"If South Ossetia unanimously wants to secede from Georgia at this time in Georgia's early (recent) history, staging a violently mobilized attack on their own people is not a very democratic way to resolve this."

Russia might disagree. Consider their treatment of Chechnya just a stones throw away. Chechnya had as reasonable a claim to independence as South Ossetia. At the time Chechnya wanted its independence, many other Caucasian states (such as Georgia) were becoming independent as the USSR fell apart.

He's echoing the Kremlin's political talking points memos.

Russia hopes to have it's cake and eat it too by bombing Georgia whilst universally opposing autonomy for breakaway regions all over the world because they don't want to encourage their own breakaway regions (Chechnya, Dagestan).