Wow, thats a biased article. Until i've read an un-biased perspective of the Chechen government (which explains the same situration), i still hold my view as before.
Just to point out, when the website is called "The Russia Journal", it is reasonable to suspect that they are biased.
<font color="#101010" size="1">[ May 15, 2004 06:38 PM: Message edited by: One Classy Bloke ]</font>
If you had taken a minute to evaluate that website, you would have found it's quite critic with some things Russia does in Chechnya.
And you're reading news from AP and Reuters... now that's biased, but you seem to believe them yet you don't believe this insider website. Sounds and feels like you're biased against Russia. It always did.
I don't read AP or Reuters. I don't even know the addresses. Edit: Idea, link me an article from either site. I'm interested. Also, putting yourself down doesn't mean you can be biased.
It just seems to me that this conflict won't end until either Chechnya is destroyed of human life, or given independence. For the perservation of life, i prefer the latter, even if it can be seen as giving in to the terrorists.
<font color="#101010" size="1">[ May 15, 2004 08:32 PM: Message edited by: One Classy Bloke ]</font>
AP and Reuters are the news agencies 99% of the western media gets 99% of the international news from. They provide and distribute the information and images based on which the media works. And they don't get their heads out of their asses most of the time. These are the suckers who say the terrorist organization eta is a "separatist" group. Because of them, most foreign sites call them separatists instead of fucking terrorists which is what they are.
hmm yea the Fox News network gets all its stuff from Reuters and AP, no wonder they are so biased =P
Is that the only mis-persception they make? Also, i would like to read an article by them. Link me please.
Most surely not, they are too focused on "America" (read: USA, which doesn't equal to America but to them it does), and usually misunderstand and understimate Asian cultures; not to mention their Asian coverage is really low. The worst thing they have, though, is that they haven't gotten their heads out of their asses, so when some muslims crash a plane on America, they go "oh my gawd", but if it happens in Chechnya, they are like "like those damn commies at Russia invaded Chechnya so they deserve it", and if some other terrorist group in Europe does anything, it's a mere "separatist" group and they take a neutral standpoint ? and you can't be neutral with terror.
You have read their articles in pretty much any news site, but if you want the main sites, try http://www.ap.org and http://www.reuters.com .
AP sucked. I looked up an article on this recent Chechen bombing. While there was no problem with it, there was an air of "couldn't care less"-ness. It seems this was not very important to these people. The search feature sucked ass too.
Read a similar article on Reuters. Also lame. Similar air of lack of careing.
I mainly read/hear my news on the BBC. While some of their articles are sourced from reuters, they also add their own points. I looked into the same news story. They were slightly similar, still used the term "Seperatist rebels", but seems to be much more in depth to the event.
Also, the title "seperatist rebels" is accurate to me. While their actions are obivously terrorist, what they want is independence. They would most likely stop these terrorist actions if they got independence.
They had gotten independence in 1996 and they invaded Russia. It's clearer than ever that they won't stop if given independence. They want to take over the whole area to convert it into another gay muslim state. They aren't separatists, they are invaders, and now Russia has its legitimate right to retaliate and take control of such a dangerous area. Just like the UN together did on Afgheyistan, and nobody complained like this.
<font size="2" face="Verdana,sans-serif">This quote from the BBCi website shows what has been happening time and time again in human history.Moscow withdrew its forces under a 1996 peace agreement brokered by Aleksandr Lebed, then Yeltsin's security chief. The deal gave Chechnya substantial autonomy but not full independence. The Chechen chief of staff, General Aslan Maskhadov, was elected president.
However, Chechnya had been reduced to ruins by the war and Russia failed to invest in reconstruction. General Maskhadov could not control brutal warlords who grew rich by organised crime and kidnapping. Many victims were murdered by their captors.
While Chechnya was given independence, help and aid wasn't given to the area, which had been war torn. Bitter feelings rose up, people became desperate. I still don't understand fully why they got Dagestan (the area that was "invaded") involved.
So, now i know the story how this all started. I think this is a difficult situration to end. But killing the terrorists seems like a good start. Putin also annouced to help reconstruct the area recently. It's now a matter of how quickly it can get done. If the area can improve, removing the problems which created the terrorists, then the problem is solved. Good luck to Putin and Russia.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks