The thing with South Osettia (SO) is that their seperatists had been shelling Georgian villages for a couple of days before Georgians intervened with their bombardment & troops. After that, Russian forces, which had already been amassed on the border a month or so before that, immediately entered SO - airstrikes, tanks, you name it.

Now why Russia did that is probably unclear to most people that your side of the pond. They're saying they're protecting their "compatriots", a label Kremlin propaganda seems to be throwing around without exhaustion these days, from an aggressive state (Georgia), while Russia for the past couple of years has actually been handing out citizenship and Russian passports to anyone they could in SO (which is constitutionally a part of Georgia) - seems now they did that to just be able to invade.

>> ^Kerotan:
Dude, I know you're American, but just about every European news outlet is running the story.
Back to the video, I have to say, this makes me sick, the last thing the world needs is a sequel to chechnya, what disgusts me more is the fact the Russian population doesn't seem to care, and from a military standpoint they have nothing to worry about because Russian military > Georgian military, so he chance of a attack by georgia on Russian soil is some where between nil and zero.
Now for the lowdown as I have heard it, basically georgia functions as a sovereign state and all that, but there is a breakaway region that ignores national borders of Ossetia, with south Ossetia in georgia and the north in Russia, but both parts of Ossetia officially belong to their respective states.
This is where the water gets a little murky, Russia claims amongst other things that georgia was committing genocide in south ossetia, and that they had an obligation to the south Ossetians to protect them. The Georgians claim that Russia's attack was an unprovoked invasion.
So this is the point we are at currently, with Georgia declaring a state of war on Russia, while angling for a ceasefire/end to hostilities, and Russia quite clearly attacking civilians as you can see in the videos that are already appearing on the sift.
I am not one to usually jump the gun, but what the heck, I would place Russia in the wrong here, since some reports place Georgian dead at around 2000 people, and the way their country is run almost as a dictatorship by any other name.

I did a report for college on Chechen Republic. These guys have been at defacto war with russia since the mid 1800. They have been fighting for so long I bet they dont know what started the war. Other than the fact that Chechnya wanted autonomy.

Dude, I know you're American, but just about every European news outlet is running the story.

Back to the video, I have to say, this makes me sick, the last thing the world needs is a sequel to chechnya, what disgusts me more is the fact the Russian population doesn't seem to care, and from a military standpoint they have nothing to worry about because Russian military > Georgian military, so he chance of a attack by georgia on Russian soil is some where between nil and zero.

Now for the lowdown as I have heard it, basically georgia functions as a sovereign state and all that, but there is a breakaway region that ignores national borders of Ossetia, with south Ossetia in georgia and the north in Russia, but both parts of Ossetia officially belong to their respective states.

This is where the water gets a little murky, Russia claims amongst other things that georgia was committing genocide in south ossetia, and that they had an obligation to the south Ossetians to protect them. The Georgians claim that Russia's attack was an unprovoked invasion.

So this is the point we are at currently, with Georgia declaring a state of war on Russia, while angling for a ceasefire/end to hostilities, and Russia quite clearly attacking civilians as you can see in the videos that are already appearing on the sift.

I am not one to usually jump the gun, but what the heck, I would place Russia in the wrong here, since some reports place Georgian dead at around 2000 people, and the way their country is run almost as a dictatorship by any other name.

Breath, read my comment again. Relax.

I'll be the first to admit that Islam has issues especially in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and fundamentalist elements within Pakistan. But we are talking about a fringe here that has come to represent the wider religion of Islam.

The problem is largely stemming from Saudi Arabia and lawless regional areas of Pakistan, which both construct and fund maddrassas preaching a ultra conservative, anti western Islamic subsect called Wahhabist Islam. This is all ties back to funding from Saudi Arabia, though for some odd reason no Western power ever criticizes its funding and application (OIL) this subset of Islam which created 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and continues to send soldiers into areas where 'Jihad' thrives be it Chechnya, Afghanistan or Iraq. The Saudi Royal family controls the masses through its oppressive religion that allows them to stay in power indefinitely, western powers are too afraid to question the de facto standard fearing economic effects with regards to oil. See how Washington took no stance on the recent abusive verdict of a Saudi woman who was gang raped and then punished herself for being with unrelated man at the time of the attack.

Islam is a religion with at war with itself, but it doesn't preach segregation or enslavement of women, thought control or violence but it is a religious movement that has been corrupted through political aspirations of those seeking power. The Islamic Caliphate at its height ruled from Spain to Iran, it mingled with other faiths and peoples, and did not impose its religion on those areas it claimed. Unfortunately moderate voices in Islam are hardly heard or ignored by the sensationalist media and figures like Pat Condell.

There is no separation between those that follow the faith according to the teachings and do so with respect to other gender and minorities such as Sunni Hanafism, Sufi Islam and Ismaeli movement. Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan are just some of the Islamic states I can think of, they are not operating on that level you mention. Not to mention the large and growing Islamic communities in Canada and the USA.

Take for example those extremist elements in the UK preaching Sharia law acceptance and other restrictive practices, they are trying to create a social divide between those who are faithful and those they deem outside of Islam. By actually paying attention to them and reporting on it you are creating a self feeding cycle, because they can claim oppression, and build further divides between elements of society. But at the end of the day they are all immigrants living in a foreign land bound by the laws and regulations of that land, all coming there to lead a better life then the one they lead in their own nations. I believe they are hypocritical cunts personally that use the religion for their own ends.

The UK government is at fault here as well, they are being overly politically correct to a religious movement that should be treated as religion not some atomic bomb. Muslims follow the faith at their choice they shouldn't be treated any more special then Christians or Jews, bar preventing religious conflicts if targeted (this applies to all).

A recent Economist article looked at how Islam and immigration is being used by European politicians hoping to gain votes by inciting differences, especially when it comes to certain issues (eg Mosques being built). The benefits are easy to deduce, they benefit those extremists who can claim their religion is being attacked, and they benefit those hoping to garner votes and political power based on xenophobia and misunderstanding (see previous Swiss elections). In Germany, Netherlands and France the influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East only aggravates the problem, cohesion into European society is hard for immigrants, and there aren't many institutions that deal with it. But I don't see Islam putting shackles on European society thats a bit silly and sensationalized.

I think the problem is a little more complex then just saying lets get rid of Islam tomorrow, forcing people down a certain path of action is just as bad as imposition of thought control. I think a dialog should be made, I think there needs to be understanding on both sides, between those who don't know the faith and those who follow it. I personally think Islam needs to comeback to tolerance and major reforms should take place. In the short term understanding will allow intermingling and eventual passive shifts in thought through being exposed to a free society, and higher education. Religion becomes a choice and or leads to atheism. However attacking the faith and citing it as being foolish or stupid or a bad idea is only going to create further divides.

>> ^bamdrew:
If you're concerned about the safety of our country, educate yourself, your friends and your family on the local, state, and federal election candidates (their voting records, their funding base, their previous employment, etc.). A well informed, highly participatory citizen is a patriotic citizen; an anti-government militia member, in this day and age, is typically just a misguided person with an agenda.


To be fair, nearly every totalitarian state that has emerged in the Western world in the 20th century came from a democracy where the citizenry was overwhelmingly "well informed, highly participatory", from Spain pre-Franco to Weimar Germany. They were not, however, well-armed.

And to whomever made the comment about the unlikely nature of a slightly armed, poorly trained populace resisting a modern military... Chechnya? Bosnia? Uh... Iraq?

Anna Politkovskaya was not an "ultra liberal crazy" as you put it, she was in fact one of the few journalists who dared questioned the official line from the Kremlin, she asked the questions that no one dare asked and was submitting to various acts of harrassement by the state who viewed her reportage as dangerous.

Politkovskaya made her name reporting from lawless Chechnya, where many journalists and humanitarian workers have been kidnapped or killed. She was arrested and subjected to mock execution by Russian military forces there, and she was poisoned on the way to Beslan, but survived and continued her reporting. She authored several books about Chechen wars and Putin's Russia and received numerous prestigious international awards for her work.

Her numerous articles critical of the war in Chechnya described abuses committed by Russian military forces, by Chechen rebels, and by the Russian-backed Chechen administration led by Akhmad Kadyrov and his son Ramzan Kadyrov. Politkovskaya chronicled human rights abuses and policy failures in Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia's North Caucasus in several books on the subject, including A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya and A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, which painted a picture of brutal war in which thousands of innocent citizens have been tortured, abducted or killed at the hands of Chechen or federal authorities."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

She wrote:

"We are hurtling back into a Soviet abyss, into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance. All we have left is the internet, where information is still freely available. For the rest, if you want to go on working as a journalist, it's total servility to Putin. Otherwise, it can be death, the bullet, poison, or trial - whatever our special services, Putin's guard dogs, see fit."

And if you highly doubt that the Kremlin or Putin would order the assassination of a rogue reporter then I think you missed the poisoning of FSB dissident Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium-210:

As of 26 January 2007, British officials said police had solved the murder of Litvinenko. They discovered "a 'hot' teapot at London's Millennium Hotel with an off-the-charts reading for polonium-210, the radioactive material used in the killing." In addition, a senior official said investigators had concluded the murder of Litvinenko was "a 'state-sponsored' assassination orchestrated by Russian security services."

Or are British authorities "fantasy level conspirators" as well? I think your personal admiration of Putin's usurpation of power is interfering with your ability to discern the facts.

Call me an idiot, but I highly doubt the Kremlin OR Putin would find her work SO THREATENING that they had to send government assassins to take her down. Especially after watching the Orange revolution unfold from the same exact way in Ukraine. Are the Russian government so stupid to do such a thing??? This is downright fantasy level conspiracy theory. You wanna see what you WANNA see, that being me and you both.

Just because she was against the Russian government, the culprit automatically becomes that of her enemies in life. Russia has had a lot of fishy underhanded activities before and it's justified that they should be the prime suspects. But in this case it just doesn't make sense.

The rational explanation would be that a former Russian soldier who served in Chechnya hated her biased journalism so much that he took the matter into his own hands. You guys do realize that she has an extremely leftist liberal outlook, and was never liked by the Russian troops. War is brutal, for both parties. Yet she always sided with the Chechnyans, and that pissed off a lot of Russian patriots who always thought her works were unfair and biased and always downplayed the brutality of Chechnya rebels and only focusing on the retaliation acts of Russian soldiers.

Part of being a journalist is having tolerable rapport and non-biased views of the situation, and report the situation as is, without one's own analysis. Imagine how our troops feel if you went to Iraq as a journalist and constantly complained and criticized US troops for bombarding Afghans and starving Iraqi children, yet report how awful the Americans are because they're terrorizing the neighborhood with random raids and patrols but getting anything done, and that they're useless, and blame all the collateral damage on them. And the reporter is here to interview you about how futile the US efforts are in Middle east, while you lay in bed with a charred leg from an roadside IED, and just got back from a friend's funeral.

Your feelings to strangle the reporter is justified at that point. Well at least American journalists are trained to be unbiased and fair, which is very hard to do and often a forgotten art nowadays.

Anna Politkovskaya, on the other hand, never tried to understand Russians' side of the aspect, like many many other ultra liberal crazies. Yes we should mourn for her death, but don't justify her loss by saying 'she was right about everything'. Because she was a very biased journalist who provoked and enraged the Russian soldiers.


My god, the more I read about you guys posts, more I realize how sickened I am by ultra liberal craziness. I think you guys are starting to turn me into a hard ass conservative Republican!! 0_o What have you done to me?!?!!? (although Republicans hate Russians just as much as any other. A common trait throughout American history. Shared hatred against enemy FTW! Reunite the nation by focusing on hating Russia!!!)

On August 28th 2007 it was announced that 10 people were arrested in connection to her murder:

"Controversy arose because the prosecutor, Yuri Y. Chaika, suggested that the motive for killing had not been to silence Ms. Politkovskaya, whose efforts to uncover corruption and brutality under President Vladimir V. Putin had brought her international acclaim but scorn from officials here.

Rather, the prosecutor said, the killing was intended to discredit the Kremlin, by raising suspicions that it had been involved, and ultimately to destabilize the Russian state. That now-official theory is markedly different from one broadly accepted by her peers, who have said she was killed in retaliation for her work or to prevent additional articles from being published.

Among those arrested, the prosecutor said, were a police major and three former police officers, who were working with a criminal gang led by a Chechen. Also arrested, he said, was a former officer in the F.S.B., the principal successor to the K.G.B.

Mr. Chaika added that the killing had been ordered from abroad, although he refused to identify the man suspected of being the mastermind or disclose his whereabouts, and provided no evidence to support the claim. The prosecutor would not release the names of any of the suspects.

His description of the motive aligned neatly with Mr. Putin's first public statements about the killing last year and with a pattern of government contentions that foreigners were trying to undermine Russia and the Kremlin, and to tarnish their reputations."

- NYT

It was standard Soviet practice to blame any problems that occur within its borders on foreign influences in the past. The press brief went on to state the murders were designed to destabilize the political situation in Russia and blame the Kremlin for it. This is totally ridiculous considering that the only people to benefit from her death was the Kremlin and specifically Putin himself.

Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-FSB Lt.Col and dissident accused Vladimir Putin of personally ordering the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. He himself was poisoned on November 1st of 2006, via lethal dose of polonium-210. As of 26 January 2007, British officials said police had solved the murder of Litvinenko. They discovered "a 'hot' teapot at London's Millennium Hotel with an off-the-charts reading for polonium-210, the radioactive material used in the killing." In addition, a senior official said investigators had concluded the murder of Litvinenko was "a 'state-sponsored' assassination orchestrated by Russian security services.

"The Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.

The Kremlin press pool is like so many institutions in Russia that have the trappings of a Western-style pluralistic society but operate under a different set of understandings, part of what analyst Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center calls "the illusion of democracy." Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin. Elections are held, but candidates out of favor with the Kremlin are often knocked off the ballot. Courts conduct trials, but the state almost never loses. Parliament meets but only to rubber-stamp Kremlin legislation.

Putin offered an example of that at the news conference when defending his decision last fall to abolish elections of regional governors. "The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said. They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot." Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents. "It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"

In fact, under the new system, Putin will appoint governors. His selections have to be ratified by regional legislatures, but if such a legislature rejects his choice twice, it will be dissolved. As for secret ballots, Russian regional leaders have proved adept at generating the outcomes they wish.

Anna Politkovskaya was just one of the dozens of reporters to meet their end during the reign of Putin, yet the press which is 80% state controlled dare not question the official line from Kremlin. She was murdered on October 7th 2006, which also happened to be Putin's birthday.

"Russia is yet another country where a free press is upheld in the language of the constitution, but the reality is one of state control of expression, concentration of media in the hands of the very few and very rich, and violence against journalists who report on crime and corruption.

Vladimir Putin's tenure has been marked by firm and incremental moves by the state against press freedom and independence. In some cases, the Putin government's strategies are relatively direct, such as strict controls on reporting in Chechnya. Other approaches -- such as the targeting of journalists with politically-motivated libel suits, or hostile takeovers of key media outlets by businessmen with close ties to Putin himself -- are more subtle, yet consistent and effective strategies for ensuring that the state influence permeates the media at all levels.

The strategy has resulted in the takeover of a prominent and outspoken, independent, national television station and the consolidation of newspaper and magazine ownership under a handful of powerful oligarchs. While an independent press does exist in Russia, the overall effect has been to stifle criticism of Putin and his regime on key issues like government corruption and abuses in Chechnya. Media support for the Putin government was particularly evident in the parliamentary elections in spring of 2004, during which Russian press groups complained of state-dominated television's promotion of the pro-Kremlin parties.

The right to free expression is more flagrantly violated at the local level, where journalists who report on corrupt politicians and organized crime are routinely harassed, attacked, and sometimes murdered, with generally only a perfunctory and thoroughly flawed prosecution to follow. A noteworthy case is the murder of the editor-in-chief of an independent newspaper in Togliatti, an industrial city in the Volga River region, in October of 2003. It was the second murder of the editor of the very same publication in less than two years. The following investigation has been denounced as a sham."

- Source http://www.pbs.org/

I watched the main prosecutors briefing on PTP Planet in Russian that morning. The rhetoric, method of presentation, hostile opposition to any questions by the press left no doubt in my mind that it was simply a political ploy to ease criticism of the Putin government with regards to the murders. Suddenly after years of inaction not one, but several murders are explained away neatly, however neither actual motives, names of other suspects nor any concrete evidence backing up the claims were presented.

For more on Russian subversion of democracy I recommend you check out my sift - http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Rise-of-Pro-Putin-Youth

Chechnya and others started resolving to military actions (including violating human rights toward Russian soldiers) whenever Russia was weak historically (this time, pre-2000 without today's Russian oil business). And desperate to hold the government from downright collapse, Russia started to implement torture and violation of human rights etc.

What's going on in Chechnya and other provinces of Russia is a necessary evil. You may argue that Russia doesn't have to resolve to torture and oppression. But how else would you fight against a militarily active independence movement that outright refuses to abide by Russian rules? If they don't want to play by the rules, then the rules don't apply to them either.

You may say this is cruel, but we had a similar history of our own. We had Confederate States of America declaring independence, forcing USA to declare war, killing total 3% of United States population. These guys wanted to secede from United States and wanted to keep slavery (violation of human rights). It came from a very distinct political stance and desire to protect local economy (also influence of Texas, who wanted a country of their own as well), as seeing end of slavery would mean collapse of already dwindling southern economy.

You could argue that United States would've been better off granting independence to CSA without a declaring war. Well then I don't see why US should keep Texas or California or New Mexico or Vermont. And with CSA continuing to have slave trade, and Texas continuing to raid local Indian settlements to gain territory?

Would we have been better off as a divided nation? That is a very serious question.


In reply to this comment by messenger:
More civic power in certain culturally different areas of a country leads to demands for rights and independence, which either leads to actual independence, or to violent oppression. In these cases, it was violent oppression, and that's what I don't like. When I say that it's human rights violations that are holding those two countries together, I mean that human rights violations are forcing Chechnya and Taiwan to remain part of the country, not that the whole country would fall apart.

Ah. I see where our misunderstanding lies: When I said something about "nations clamoring for independence," I was referring only to Chechnya, Tibet, etc., NOT China, nor Russia. The only changes I would like to make in those countries is to stop their human rights violations, by I-don't-know-what-method, but certainly not by imposing democracy from the outside. That clearly doesn't work.

More civic power in certain culturally different areas of a country leads to demands for rights and independence, which either leads to actual independence, or to violent oppression. In these cases, it was violent oppression, and that's what I don't like. When I say that it's human rights violations that are holding those two countries together, I mean that human rights violations are forcing Chechnya and Taiwan to remain part of the country, not that the whole country would fall apart.

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
It's because

1. Russia actually DO want Putin to stay in power. Despite what Kasparov says there, the general Russian public does have a strong support for Putin. Especially young Russians support Putin with much optimism and vigor.

2. If released Chechnya, other states with private militaries would start demanding the same thing. Many of them being remnants of instability since the collapse of USSR. So even though Chechnya alone does have a legitimate cause to demand independence, Russia just cannot afford to show signs of 'giving up' at this time.

Once things have settled down, they may give it another chance.

3. Improved human rights treatment can be achieved without having to make a democratic nation. People usually confuse democracy automatically resulting to better humans rights and civic power. It's actually the opposite. More civic power means more demands for civilian rights, and civilian rights leads to democracy.

Human rights violations result from power struggles (government instability) and lack of civil power. Once government stabilizes and economy goes up, these things will take care of themselves.

It's because

1. Russia actually DO want Putin to stay in power. Despite what Kasparov says there, the general Russian public does have a strong support for Putin. Especially young Russians support Putin with much optimism and vigor.

2. If released Chechnya, other states with private militaries would start demanding the same thing. Many of them being remnants of instability since the collapse of USSR. So even though Chechnya alone does have a legitimate cause to demand independence, Russia just cannot afford to show signs of 'giving up' at this time.

Once things have settled down, they may give it another chance.

3. Improved human rights treatment can be achieved without having to make a democratic nation. People usually confuse democracy automatically resulting to better humans rights and civic power. It's actually the opposite. More civic power means more demands for civilian rights, and civilian rights leads to democracy.

Human rights violations result from power struggles (government instability) and lack of civil power. Once government stabilizes and economy goes up, these things will take care of themselves.

In reply to this comment by messenger:
@legacy:

You have said several times that you democracy can't be forced on a people who aren't ready for it. I fully agree with the principle and your examples. But I don't see how that sentiment applies here. What country is being considered for "forceful" democratization? Nobody's talking about going to war to make China and Russia democratic. We're talking about nations that are clamoring for freedom and being militarily repressed. As I said above, if Russia and China stopped their human rights violations, Tibet, Taiwan, Burma and Chechnya would be free, and soon democratic. Heck, Taiwan already is democratic, but not freely so. China and Russia would be imperceptibly smaller, and free to continue on as the dictatorships they are now, without having any democracy "forced" on them.

@legacy:

You have said several times that you democracy can't be forced on a people who aren't ready for it. I fully agree with the principle and your examples. But I don't see how that sentiment applies here. What country is being considered for "forceful" democratization? Nobody's talking about going to war to make China and Russia democratic. We're talking about nations that are clamoring for freedom and being militarily repressed. As I said above, if Russia and China stopped their human rights violations, Tibet, Taiwan, Burma and Chechnya would be free, and soon democratic. Heck, Taiwan already is democratic, but not freely so. China and Russia would be imperceptibly smaller, and free to continue on as the dictatorships they are now, without having any democracy "forced" on them.

All that's holding Russia and China together right now is gross human rights violations. Without them, both countries would fall apart. It's true. And that's a good thing. I'd rather have a divided Russia and a divided China, and a free Taiwan, a free Tibet, a free Burma, and a free Chechnya.

fletch, #5 is misleading. notice how the sick, twisted, powerhungry, murderous leaders of these organisations don't actually commit suicide. i really don't think it's a genuine belief of theirs that paradise awaits the suicide bomber, they just say that to maintain power, because they're psycho.

of course, if you don't invade their country, smash everthing up, and create the perfect environment for their influence to spread (with #1,#2,#3 and #4) then you would find their tactics a lot less troublesome.

but, oh yeah, there's teh oilzorz factor and teh relekshuns.

like Ron Paul says... why are the US not fighting Putin in Chechnya? Juat answer me that one question without squirming in a sea of apologism.

I hear India's justice system leaves a lot to be desired, shall we go liberate the Indians?

How about that crazy Pakistan president guy with his military uniform?

Come to think of it, how about that Saddam guy...? Remind me why the US gave him so much before hanging him?

Basically, don't be distracted by the Allahu akhbar stuff, any more than i should be distracted by jesus freaks in america.

WOW! Oreily is possibly the most ignorant person I have ever seen in Media, and Geraldo isnt much better. It was a drunk driver, DEAL WITH THAT FIRST! Then deal with him being an Illegal. So many people die every 1 second due to car accidents, and how many of those are due to drunkeness? ALOT! Most of those arent Illegal Aliens. I Made the drive back fromo Tempe AZ to Texas, and there was Border Patrol all over, look, they try to get here because its a better place to live. It happens, all the time in Chechnya and places where there is constant fighting, most of them are political refugees.

What we need to do is try and make it easier for them to stand up and cross the border and learn to be a US citezen and not be Illegals. So when stupid balltied people like Oreily get ahold of some dumbassed unthought through bullshit about immigration they need to think about where they came from. My great grand parents came from Ireland, and Scotland, I think they to had to become a US citezen the hard way. So really they need to stop being so stupid about Illegal Immingrants, because its not going to solve anything by arguing about it.