Mar 31st, 2010, 11:12 AM
First of all, the Russian government isn't fucking with my rights that much. I'm not Russian I'm Australian. I don't know if that was a mistake but I thought I should clear it up. I'm cynical about the whole thing because I know that Russia is capable of peace, they just do everything in their power to make is seem more and more distant.
It's not in the realms of fantasy to envisage that the Russian government perpetuates violence in the regions so as to effect a violent reaction from the people that live there. Yes, a bomb blowing you up on a train is a legitimate thing to be scared of, and it's a real thing, but it's something that wouldn't exist without the involvement of the Russian government, and the fear of it is used like a tool by, not only Russia, but many countries.
The Russian government hasn't 'made up' the extremists out of thin air, but they certainly have played a part in creating them.
The statement "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing to me for a number of reasons. On one hand it is as vague as is expected of any government; anyone can be classed as a terrorist, and the destruction of 'terrorists' can range anywhere between hanging a captured fighter to bombing a city into dust and leaving the populace to starve in the winter. Both of which have and will continue to happen. You could read into it and say that destroying terrorists means destroying the existence of terrorism through negotiation and peace, but as Medvedev has already stated, there isn't going to be any of that.
On the other hand it is very to the point. Terrorists will be destroyed. They wont get a trial, they wont be sent to prison. There are no words like 'justice' thrown into the mix, is that a relaxation on the part of the government for overusing a word that means so little, or is it a simple fact that there wont be justice? Who knows. "In retaliation for these bombings we are going to kill people", that's what I read, and of course it's going to be a lot of people, many of whom will have had nothing to do with the crime already committed.
That is why it is disturbing to me. It's means there is going to be killing and I don't see how that can be anything but disturbing. You can say that it's just being frank of what would happen anyway, but that's another reason it's disturbing, you can just come out and say that in revenge you will kill undisclosed amounts of whoever you want, and people will feel safer because you said it.
Whether the people that utilise terror tactics deserve to die is another thread. I understand that people have to die sometimes for there to be peace, but this isn't in aid of that.
Oh, and no, I don't think that he was simply referring to the fact that terrorists will indeed be destroyed by the simple fact that they blow themselves up to become a terrorist.
Please tell me how you see "we will start a peace process" as disturbing. Or more disturbing than what I said. I'm interested.
I never said I was on one side or another, actually, and I didn't think that we had to point out that we don't condone the act of killing 38 civilians, otherwise I would have said that. I think it's a disgusting act, and I don't condone killing innocent people in any way. I do, however, see that the origins of these acts are bred from circumstances caused by the Russian Government. In all honesty, the caucus is a complicated mess of morals, with both justice and terror on either side, and I'm not naive enough to say that anyone is fighting for freedom and hope, but then again I'm not stupid and blind enough to think that more fighting, and more bombing and more revenge killing and more occupation is going to stop the ... uh, fighting, bombing, killing and occupations. Certainly not in this case.
The situation is much more fucked up than "Russia is fighting for it's territory in Chechnya, and the Chechens are fighting back". If it was, it would be easier to pick sides. No, if Russia removed all troops from the region there would still be attacks in Moscow. There are Islamic extremists fighting there that are not even from any of the surrounding countries, and if it was as simple as Russia seeing the bad guys and shooting them then that would be great. I don't think I have to explain the effects of war on the population, nor the growing support for extremist Islam simply in defiance of Russian actions. It's just not so simple. Not in the Caucus, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. It's not cowboys and indians where the good guys shoot all the bad guys and then they've won. It's not easy enough to say that the Chechen fighters are the good guys, which you assumed I am. It's not easy, and rather than endless war, endless killing and endless war widows driven to blow themselves up on trains, there needs to be compromises and peace so that a solution can be worked out. The Russian government knows this, the American government knows this, but it's much more beneficial to keep the whole joke running.
Why don't the rebels/militants/Islamic extremists/terrorists stop fighting then? Well, for one, when you are attacked you fight back, two, it's beneficial to the Islamic nut jobs to have jihads too. But it's the civilians that you have to make peace with; don't give them a reason to support the 'terrorists', give them reasons to support democratic governments in Chechnya and Ingushetia that are also supported by Russia. Easy, no? Not fucking it up even worse might be a good start.