• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blasts in Moscow metro kill at least 37

I strongly disagree.

Guilt is neither collective nor inherited. Indeed, if it were, actual and perceived grievances would persist for perpetuity and the future would become a continual quest for avenging those actual or perceived grievances of the past, no matter how far in the past they occurred. Distinctions between individual guilt or innocence would cease to exist. The rule of law would be irrelevant. Unarmed civilians, including women and children, would enjoy no sanctuary. Genocide would become the single means by which the perpetual cycle of vengeance could be ended. That would be an ugly world, to put things very mildly. It would be anything but civilized by any sense of the term.

I am not talking about colective guilt I am talking about a people's fight fo greedom. let Chchenya be free and they will no longer attack you Metro or trains or planes.
 
Alexa,

Most ethnic conflicts can be very brutal. The one(s) in the Caucasus region are no exception. That some of the Russian military operations were heavy handed, to say the least, is well-established. That the terrorists engaged in extremely brutal conduct is also well-established.

I believe most concur that at some point in time, a political dimension that accommodates both the needs of the Chechen residents (greater autonomy and economic development) and needs of Russia (vital interests in the Caucasus and preservation of Russia's territorial integrity) would be beneficial.

Unfortunately, so long as the terrorism persists, not just in the Chechen region but also across the Caucasus, such an added dimension will likely not be possible. In fact, just days before the senseless terrorist attack in Moscow's Metro, Russia's deputy prime minister had discussed an aggressive socioeconomic development program, including the taking into account human rights, in the North Caucasus region, including the Chechen region, according to BBC Monitoring. That campaign has likely been disrupted by the terrorist attacks and tougher counterterrorism measures are probably the more likely route now.

The terrorism cannot nor should not be rationalized. Rationalizing the deliberate actions of an entity that run counter to the Laws of War establishes a precedent for others to rationalize similar conduct. It also grants de facto license to others to engage in similar practices. The end result is only reduced welfare for civilians. Therefore, even as a political dimension would be helpful, I believe the world should support Russia's quest to eradicate the terrorism so that such a political solution can become viable. Needless to say, like all combatants, Russia also has a responsibility to act in a fashion consistent with the Laws of War.

Give me a break " heavy handed, to say the least," It was genocide, ethnocide, and muder by the Russians. The Russians are the terrorists here not the Chechens.
 
Killing innocent civilians who have got nothing to do with their situation is a monstrous act, made by monsters, who deserve no sympathy from a human being.

Yet if one is of the mind that Russians are not human becasue they did not behave as humans towards others then it is ok to take revenge upon all of them. Right !!! War is war !!
 
Yet if one is of the mind that Russians are not human becasue they did not behave as humans towards others then it is ok to take revenge upon all of them. Right !!! War is war !!
I'm not going to even bother replying to this comment.

It is clear that our moral codes differ by light years.
 
Alexa,

Just so it is clear, I did not suggest or mean to suggest that you condone the terrorist attacks.

With respect to human rights, according to BBC Monitoring on 24 March, which is a subscription service that translates various foreign language news stories, the human rights improvements were supposed to be a part of the larger set of socioeconomic reforms to be undertaken. My guess is that any implementation was either in the very early stages or intended in the near future when the overall strategy was carried out. Now, it is quite likely that any such efforts will be put on hold, with an emphasis placed on counterterrorism.

Thank you.

The end of beatings, torture, murder and people disappearing should have been the very first thing to change and should never have happened in the first place.

There is no reason or excuse for a State to be engaging in the sort of things it is doing in Chechyna nor any reason for us to support their tactics.

Every Chechens life is as important as every Russian one and I hate to say it but that seemed to be the logic of the Chechens in the documentary I saw which allowed them to psychologically start to do such despicable things.

Russia is acting wrongly and should be criticised accordingly, or do we just wait till the full genocide of the Chechen people - I understand half are gone already.
 
U and Metalgear are conviently forgetting about the deaths of innocent Chechens, and is that not terrorism? Nobody likes to see the deaths of innocent people, but what do you expect from people who have lost their whole families? Do you expect them to just sit by and forget? I agree that that the attack should have happened on a government structure and that the civilians should not have died.


Grey Fox.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

- Ghandi


But what can you expect from females whose children were taken from them by the Russians and they do not know if they are dead or alive? Imagine having to go through that for years and you do not know the whereabouts of your child? What would you do?
I feel that the Chechens would have attacked government buildings but they do not have the necessary power, and that the war method they are following does not allow for them to attack structures that are heavly defended against any possible attack.

Read what i wrote. I took into full account what the Russians did to the Chechens. As i said, the AUTHORITIES should be paying with it for there petty crimes against humanity, not innocent civilians who had absolutely no say or choice in the matter what so ever....my point was, they are blowing up the wrong people, yes?
 
Yet if one is of the mind that Russians are not human becasue they did not behave as humans towards others then it is ok to take revenge upon all of them. Right !!! War is war !!

FWIW, that is a line of argument that rationalizes any atrocities, war crimes or other crimes against humanity that may be perpetrated during a conflict. For good reason, the Laws of War reject that kind of reasoning, barring the deliberate targeting of civilians, prohibiting indiscriminate bombardment, among other heinous acts. Those who carry out such indefensible acts should rightly be brought to account.
 
Re: Moscow metro was attacked

We get a lot of em in the Europe section.. usually about Georgia, the Baltic states and Russia.

Yeah, and the subjects they broach are interesting, and I'd like to discuss them, but like you say, they never respond.:(
 
Now, I know a man is supposed to get 72 vigins for their 'sacrafice'.....
What is the reward for women?.....:shock:

A night with Nancy Pelosi.:rofl
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

The end of beatings, torture, murder and people disappearing should have been the very first thing to change and should never have happened in the first place.

There is no reason or excuse for a State to be engaging in the sort of things it is doing in Chechyna nor any reason for us to support their tactics.

Every Chechens life is as important as every Russian one and I hate to say it but that seemed to be the logic of the Chechens in the documentary I saw which allowed them to psychologically start to do such despicable things.

Russia is acting wrongly and should be criticised accordingly, or do we just wait till the full genocide of the Chechen people - I understand half are gone already.

Alexa,

I favor fundamental human rights and I also believe any state or non-state entity should do its best to adhere to the Laws of War.

Having said that, I do believe any people or groups who deliberately target civilians, regardless of the cause they use to rationalize it, should be held fully accountable for their crimes against humanity. Granting them immunity from responsibility can only create a de facto standard by which others are freed from their obligation to avoid causing deliberate harm to civilians, refrain from a wide range of war crimes/crimes against humanity, etc. In the long-run, that development would create a more dangerous and deadly world.

Finally, you can correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumption, but it appears we do not really disagree on human rights and the protection of civilians.
 
Last edited:
Alexa,

I favor fundamental human rights and I also believe any state or non-state entity should do its best to adhere to the Laws of War.

Having said that, I do believe any people or groups who deliberately target civilians, regardless of the cause they use to rationalize it, should be held fully accountable for their crimes against humanity. Granting them immunity from responsibility can only create a de facto standard by which others are freed from their obligation to avoid causing deliberate harm to civilians, refrain from a wide range of war crimes/crimes against humanity, etc. In the long-run, that development would create a more dangerous and deadly world.

Finally, you can correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumption, but it appears we do not really disagree on human rights and the protection of civilians.

I do not disagree with you that people should be held accountable for their actions.

I also agree with you on human rights and the protection of civilians.

Where we maybe have a slight difference is that I also believe the State should be held accountable for it's crimes.

The reason I think killing of civilians is a strategic mistake as well as immoral is that it takes the headlights off the problem rather than put it on. To me that problem is so big, that despite the actions of the killers, I believe it is still important to bring in the bigger picture. That is all.

Now my guess is that by your way of thinking, I am doing just what the terrorists want and so am showing that this activity is helpful to their cause.

That is not my intention at all but rather to bring attention to a situation the world turned a blind eye to which we should have been attending to anyway.
 
Last edited:
Where we maybe have a slight difference is that I also believe the State should be held accountable for it's crimes.

Where individuals from a state have committed crimes, those individuals should also be held accountable. States, too, have obligations e.g., those set forth under the Laws of War.

Now my guess is that by your way of thinking, I am doing just what the terrorists want and so am showing that this activity is helpful to their cause.

I would never make such a suggestion/blanket accusation. In general, one should be careful not to overgeneralize. People's speaking out on issues do not constitute automatic support for terrorists. Their intent is what matters.

For example, in the U.S. there have been some who have called for an early end to the war in Afghanistan (an approach I don't support, as I believe premature U.S. withdrawal would harm long-term American interests/contribute to a perpetuation of regional instability in Central Asia) for a variety of reasons. Even as early U.S. withdrawal might well be to the Taliban's advantage given Afghanistan's fractured society, weak institutions, and ineffectual leadership, it would be more than a stretch, not to mention inaccurate, to accuse those people of supporting the Taliban.
 
There are no laws of war.
Did or did not the U.S. Government Bomb Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Baghdad as well as several other civilian populations? The laws of war only act as a buffer for the well insulated against the under armed. and justifies the use of human shields
 
There are no laws of war.
Did or did not the U.S. Government Bomb Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Baghdad as well as several other civilian populations? The laws of war only act as a buffer for the well insulated against the under armed. and justifies the use of human shields

The "Laws of War" describe a body of instruments, the earliest of which has origins in the mid-19th century. The myriad Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions are among those instruments. A large theme associated with the Laws of War is the protection/safeguarding of civilians. Another concerns minimum treatment to be afforded to prisoners of war. Another concerns protecting the wounded/medical personnel tending to the wounded.

FWIW, human shielding is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. Hence, the Laws of War do not "justify" such a practice.

Finally, the Geneva Conventions were devised after WW II. Hence, additional protections were laid out that were not available previously. While one cannot apply today's standards to yesterday's conflicts, one most definitely can make a strong effort to apply today's standards to today's and tomorrow's conflicts.
 
Last edited:
As had been noted earlier in this thread, just days before the senseless terrorist attack in Moscow's Metro, Russia's deputy prime minister had discussed an aggressive socioeconomic development program, including the taking into account human rights, in the North Caucasus region, including the Chechen region, according to BBC Monitoring. I believed that the liberalization campaign had likely been disrupted by the terrorist attacks and tougher counterterrorism measures would follow.

Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned of tougher counterterrorism measures to follow, as he traveled to Russia's Dagestan Republic. He declared, "The range of anti-terrorism measures must be expanded; they should be not only more effective, but also more harsh, merciless and preventive. We must punish them [the terrorists]."
 
The "Laws of War" describe a body of instruments, the earliest of which has origins in the mid-19th century. The myriad Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions are among those instruments. A large theme associated with the Laws of War is the protection/safeguarding of civilians. Another concerns minimum treatment to be afforded to prisoners of war. Another concerns protecting the wounded/medical personnel tending to the wounded.

FWIW, human shielding is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. Hence, the Laws of War do not "justify" such a practice.

Finally, the Geneva Conventions were devised after WW II. Hence, additional protections were laid out that were not available previously. While one cannot apply today's standards to yesterday's conflicts, one most definitely can make a strong effort to apply today's standards to today's and tomorrow's conflicts.

The Laws of War are as loosely followed as the law that prohibits under 18's accessing pornographic material on the net, and its not as "barbarically uncommon" as most make out to be, to break them. War crimes are happening constantly, be it by Democratic powers like the US (depleted uranium), Russia (endless), or Israel (where disputed - white phosphorus), or on a wider scale by Arab extremists, Sri Lankans, the Burmese government, Africans, Serbs.....if somebody wants to play a war dirty, there is no law that will stop them. And wars are dirty. If the military supports it, you become untouchable, even by the ICC, and so the "laws of war" only apply to the unpopular politicians and not everybody like they should. So basically, these laws only apply on a conditional bases. Look at Omar Al Bashir. Good post though.
 
Last edited:
As had been noted earlier in this thread, just days before the senseless terrorist attack in Moscow's Metro, Russia's deputy prime minister had discussed an aggressive socioeconomic development program, including the taking into account human rights, in the North Caucasus region, including the Chechen region, according to BBC Monitoring. I believed that the liberalization campaign had likely been disrupted by the terrorist attacks and tougher counterterrorism measures would follow.

Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned of tougher counterterrorism measures to follow, as he traveled to Russia's Dagestan Republic. He declared, "The range of anti-terrorism measures must be expanded; they should be not only more effective, but also more harsh, merciless and preventive. We must punish them [the terrorists]."

I know we have discussed at length and it may just be your style but you still appear to be agreeing with what Russia has said.

We agreed that the brutality had not yet stopped. You say you heard a program where the Russians were saying it was going to and all sorts of good things would happen.

Well, if that were true, I do not see why one incident should be used as an excuse to be even more barbaric on the people than they were before.

When Russia and Russia's puppets in Chechyna act in a civilised way towards the general population of Chechyna then there may be a moral argument for Russia. This has not happened and it seems they have declared that they will be involved in more brutality to innocents in Chechyna.

Russia should stop acting in a brutal and unlawful way towards the people of Chechyna and follow proper methods to bring the people who did this to justice - not take it out on the entire populace of Chechyna

...or possible you are just agreeing with what others have said, the torture of Chechens in Russia and Chechyna will now begin. If so, my apologies.
 
Last edited:
I know we have discussed at length and it may just be your style but you still appear to be agreeing with what Russia has said.

Alexa,

I am only stating that Russia appears to be on a path to react as I thought it would. With Prime Minister Putin retaining significant, perhaps dominant influence, and recent past history in perspective, the Russian response is fairly predictable.

Whether or not that response is appropriate (and a very firm approach can be appropriate) will depend on how it is pursued. At this time, I am in no position to comment on its upcoming response, as the details have yet to be provided.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that Russia, like any other state, has an inherent right of self-defense. At the same time, like any other state, it also has obligations e.g., those set forth in the instruments that comprise the Laws of War, among others.

IMO, the Moscow terrorist attacks, for which Doku Umarov claimed credit, not only constituted an unacceptable deliberate attack on civilians, but they have also damaged prospects for the kind of liberalization that could benefit Russians and residents in Russia's Caucasus region alike. It is difficult to envision how the attacks, especially if they provoke a harsh response (even if that response is confined to what is permissible under the Laws of War, etc.), benefit Chechens in significant way.

I continue to believe that a political dimension that accommodates the core needs of the Chechen people (greater autonomy/improved human rights) and core needs of Russia (territorial integrity/vital interests in the Caucasus) would be beneficial. I hope that even as emotions run high in the wake of the unjustifiable terrorist attacks, Russia won't entirely abort its nascent liberalization campaign. Not all components of such a campaign are incompatible with a robust counterterrorism strategy.

Unfortunately, terrorists such as Mr. Umarov and their organizations, who choose to deliberately attack civilians with reasonable knowledge of the consequences, hinder such prospects of liberalization. In effect, not only are such persons and groups enemies of Russia, they are just as much enemies of the peoples whom they purportedly claim to represent.

Russia should...follow proper methods to bring the people who did this to justice - not take it out on the entire populace of Chechyna...

I agree. The crimes against humanity/war crimes carried out by the terrorists do not grant others license to act in a fashion that would similarly be unlawful e.g., inconsistent with the Laws of War, etc. They do not justify wholesale oppression.

In the end, Russia's fight against terrorism is with various terrorist entities. It is not with the Chechen people or any other people per se. The upcoming counterterrorism response would do well to reflect that reality.
 
Alexa,

I am only stating that Russia appears to be on a path to react as I thought it would. With Prime Minister Putin retaining significant, perhaps dominant influence, and recent past history in perspective, the Russian response is fairly predictable.

agreed

Whether or not that response is appropriate (and a very firm approach can be appropriate) will depend on how it is pursued. At this time, I am in no position to comment on its upcoming response, as the details have yet to be provided.

fair enough but as you have said above, it is predicable

Nevertheless, it should be noted that Russia, like any other state, has an inherent right of self-defense. At the same time, like any other state, it also has obligations e.g., those set forth in the instruments that comprise the Laws of War, among others.

This I think is thinking which has come in since 9/11 and is really an exaggeration which allows for an exaggerated and inappropriate response.

Chechyna did not attack Russia, terrorists did and to say Russia has an 'inherent right of self defence' implies that the whole of Chechyna has attacked Russia so Russia can reply with impunity. This is not so. This is over reaction by a dominant force and the concept carries within it the right to harm the innocent.


IMO, the Moscow terrorist attacks, for which Doku Umarov claimed credit, not only constituted an unacceptable deliberate attack on civilians, but they have also damaged prospects for the kind of liberalization that could benefit Russians and residents in Russia's Caucasus region alike. It is difficult to envision how the attacks, especially if they provoke a harsh response (even if that response is confined to what is permissible under the Laws of War, etc.), benefit Chechens in significant way.

I agree it was an unacceptable and deliberate attack on civilians (as was the Birmingham bombings). I also accept that it is more than likely that there will be no liberalisation in Chechyna. However as we have both agreed there had been none there anyway. Where I disagree with you is in where I see an implied agreement that it is right that there should now be none. On the contrary I would say that that is extremely necessary, if not too late.

I continue to believe that a political dimension that accommodates the core needs of the Chechen people (greater autonomy/improved human rights) and core needs of Russia (territorial integrity/vital interests in the Caucasus) would be beneficial. I hope that even as emotions run high in the wake of the unjustifiable terrorist attacks, Russia won't entirely abort its nascent liberalization campaign. Not all components of such a campaign are incompatible with a robust counterterrorism strategy.

Basically that is where we have disagreement. Russia not being involved in what you describe as it's 'nascent liberalization campaign', means Chechyna continuing as it is now and that seems to mean people disappearing, being killed illegally, being beaten and tortured. For me, this is not acceptable regardless of how many terrorist bombs go off in Russia.

Unfortunately, terrorists such as Mr. Umarov and their organizations, who choose to deliberately attack civilians with reasonable knowledge of the consequences, hinder such prospects of liberalization. In effect, not only are such persons and groups enemies of Russia, they are just as much enemies of the peoples whom they purportedly claim to represent.

I have respect for you but I find your belief that the Umarov and their organisation is responsible for what Russia does now wrong.

Russia is responsible for what she does now. No one else.


I agree. The crimes against humanity/war crimes carried out by the terrorists do not grant others license to act in a fashion that would similarly be unlawful e.g., inconsistent with the Laws of War, etc. They do not justify wholesale oppression.

In the end, Russia's fight against terrorism is with various terrorist entities. It is not with the Chechen people or any other people per se. The upcoming counterterrorism response would do well to reflect that reality.

and here we seem to be in complete agreement again :)
 
Last edited:
This I think is thinking which has come in since 9/11 and is really an exaggeration which allows for an exaggerated and inappropriate response.

Alexa,

Let me try to clarify my position.

Nations have an inherent right of self-defense, but they also have obligations. Exercise of the right of self-defense does not mean a nation is freed from its basic obligations. For example, following 9/11, the U.S. had a right to undertake a more aggressive counterterrorism campaign, but such a campaign had to be conducted within the framework of its constitution, not to mention the Laws of War and other instruments to which the U.S. is a party.

A recent court case concering electronic surveillance reaffirmed the paramount importance of fundamental liberties, with the Northern California District Court ruling that the Executive Branch could not treat the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Law's (FISA) requirements as optional. A similar concept applies when it comes to protecting the lives of civilians. Just because a nation is free to combat terrorism does not mean that it can ignore established principles concerning civilian protections e.g., that they cannot be deliberately targeted.

Thankfully the British Government did not see any need for it to be anything more than a police issue. They saw no need to torture and make people disappear...

We did not respond by random acts of inhumanity. The British public would not have stood for it.

We agree on that point. I believe the U.S. and other countries that have only recently faced terrorism can learn much from the UK's example, among others.

Where I disagree with you is in where I see an implied agreement that it is right that there should now be none.

Although I expect a given response that the nascent liberalization campaign will likely be suspended, I don't agree with such a move. I still favor liberalization to the large extent that it is still possible. I don't believe major elements of liberalization and required counterterrorism measures are necessarily mutually exclusive.

...that seems to mean people disappearing, being killed illegally, being beaten and tortured.

I favor aggressive policing, intelligence, prosecution, and targeted military operations. I do not support torture or extra-judicial conduct. There's a body of research that finds that torture does not yield useful information. At the same time, it damages a nation's reputation.

... I find your belief that the Umarov and their organisation is responsible for what Russia does now wrong.

Umarov and his terrorist organization are responsible for provoking a Russian response and difficulties it might cause. However, were Russia to commit war crimes or other crimes against humanity, those who commit such acts are responsible for those crimes. Russia's obligations have not been rendered irrelevant.

Hopefully, the above makes things a bit more clear where I stand on the issues.
 
FWIW, that is a line of argument that rationalizes any atrocities, war crimes or other crimes against humanity that may be perpetrated during a conflict. For good reason, the Laws of War reject that kind of reasoning, barring the deliberate targeting of civilians, prohibiting indiscriminate bombardment, among other heinous acts. Those who carry out such indefensible acts should rightly be brought to account.

These words of yours I agree with = "FWIW, that is a line of argument that rationalizes any atrocities, war crimes or other crimes against humanity that may be perpetrated during a conflict." and the best is "Those who carry out such indefensible acts should rightly be brought to account"


The reason is that I agree with the two sentances from your post above is this=

"
HTML:
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: murder by hunger) was a famine in the Ukrainian SSR from 1932–1933, during which millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[1][2][3][4] Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.6 million[5][6] to 10 million.[7] Primarily; as a result of the economic and trade policies instituted by Joseph Stalin , millions of Ukrainians starved to death over the course of a single year. The causes of the famine are a controversial issue and scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors[8][9][1][10], bad economic policies or engineered measures towards Ukrainian peasants. The famine was part of a wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933.
The root cause of the Holodomor is a subject of scholarly debate.[11] Some scholars have argued that the Soviet policies that caused the famine may have been designed as an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide.[12][13][14][15][16] The Holodomor is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine"[17][18] and "famine-genocide in Ukraine".[19] ..................[13]

I am waiting for the time when "indefensible acts should rightly be brought to account" . I want the "indefensible acts " the murder by hunger by the terror weapon of forced famine committed by Russians "brought to account" .

I do not want revenge for some irrational reason nor do I hate just to hate out of ethnic comflict I want the "indefensible acts " by Russians "brought to account" .
 
Last edited:
I am waiting for the time when "indefensible acts should rightly be brought to account" . I want the "indefensible acts " the murder by hunger by the terror weapon of forced famine committed by Russians "brought to account" .

I do not want revenge for some irrational reason nor do I hate just to hate out of ethnic comflict I want the "indefensible acts " by Russians "brought to account" .

In my view, there is little doubt that the artificial famine--artificial because it did not result from purely natural factors--was the result of deliberate Soviet policy. Those who were responsible, Stalin and those who carried out his work, are dead.

I fully agree that the history/facts associated with the cruel nature of Soviet communism, its horrific policies, and the huge number of deaths that resulted from that totalitarian dictatorship should never be forgotten. A good understanding of what happened is key to reducing prospects of a recurrence at some point in history in some part of the world, as human nature remains relatively constant and the tendency among some to try to accumulate near-total power has not dissipated.

However, as previously noted, today's generation of Russians is not responsible for Stalin's monstrous acts, just as the contemporary generation of Germans is not responsible for the Holocaust. Precisely because they had no role in those historic crimes against humanity, they should not be held accountable. Doing so is not justice. It is naked vengeance for the crimes of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom