Ah! So by not villifying those who chop of heads, attack schools and hospitals we will be preventing "further radicalisation"?? How much further can they be radicalized, anyway?

If we are to villify the rebels, then we must villify the Russians.

No problem. If the shoe fits…

Just as when we discuss the rise of the Nazis it is insufficient to simply discuss the writing of Mein Kampf or the psychological states of individual Nazis,

Ah, yes. Nazis.. Europe still hasn’t learned that lesson. Peace in our time?

Look, what I am arguing is that this policy of villification can lead not nothing but further radicalisation and further death and misery. If we are to villify the rebels, then we must villify the Russians.

But as the world actually is, we must work harder on changing Russian attitudes to Chechnya. This is because we have diplomatic contact with the Russians and engage in trade with them, so we have avenues of influence that we do not have with the Chechen rebels. This is also because the Russians, whatever they think, hold most of the cards in play. They have the overwhelming power in this conflict.

Incidentally, while the Taliban may have graduated from Pakistani madrasses, there would be no crippled, shattered, brutalised country for them to seize power in had it not been for a ‘clash of imperialisms’ in Afghanistan.

Just as when we discuss the rise of the Nazis it is insufficient to simply discuss the writing of Mein Kampf or the psychological states of individual Nazis, so it is insufficient to look at the rise of other extremist ideologies without reference to the [production of the] social and economic wastelands in which they find willing recruits.

Yes, let’s deflect blame from the rebels. Everyone is guilty except for the people who are cutting off heads.

the installation of client governments all to often leads the people and their leaders into the hands of extremist ideologies

Well, Taliban was the product of the Pakistani madrasses, if I am not mistaken. Chechnya wouldn’t be involved in these drawn out wars with Russia if not for the financing that came from the outside.

And, as the conflict in Chechnya demonstrates, the last thing that can be afforded is villification

We can’t afford to villify those who take over schools, hopsitals, blow up metros, discos, take hostages, chop off heads, etc.??? How can we afford not to?

The history of modern imperialism (and we can add the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to that list) presents the lesson that repression of self-determination and the installation of client governments all to often leads the people and their leaders into the hands of extremist ideologies.

"Arafat, Hamas, etc, are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." But are they being vilified in Europe? Nope. They get all the sympathy." This simply is not true. The European view is much more balanced than that. You may see articles and demonstrations supporting these groups and people, but you will also see articles and demonstrations and, more importantly, government policy, opposing these people and organisations. And, as the conflict in Chechnya demonstrates, the last thing that can be afforded is villification, as standing by one side – as our leaders have done – is no solution at all, nor is it a principled or morally defensible position to take.

I was not referring to the apartment bombings, but I am familiar with the different theories regarding that incident. What I was referring to is the fact that Basayev has invaded Dagestan in the August of 1999 with the goal of unifying Chechnya and Dagestan into one Islamic Taliban-like (this is according to the "rebels" themselves) state. For some reason that fact is rarely brought up as the cause of the Russian invasion. Invading Dagestan, with the goal of annexation, would be a reason enough for the Russians to attack. After all, Dagestan is a part of Russia.

Chechens also managed to piss off Dagestanis who were sympathetic to their plight prior.

Furthermore, why should the response to a bombing be the invasion of a nation and the murder of 250,000 people (and 25,000 Russian troops)?

I am not here to defend Putin’s policies or commend the Russian army. I am merely commenting on how Europeans romanticize terorrists. Chechen rebels are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." Arafat, Hamas, etc, are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." But are they being vilified in Europe? Nope. They get all the sympathy.

By the way, that 25,000 number of russian dead is most likely to be higher. Way higher.

<I>The powerful actors in this tragedy are the Russians, and thus the overwhelming responsibility lies in their hands for what has happened and for the ending of this humanitarian catastrophe.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. If not for the influx of $ from saudis and other rich oil sheikhs, that war would probably have never taken place. People who blindly support these terrorists share the blame as well, because they legitimize them and their ways. Blowing up airplanes, metros, theaters, holding hostages in hospitals and schools, and your first reaction to my mention of the Chechens is "Don’t tell me that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Putin"…

Maskhadov and Dudaev were not wahabbi, that much is true. But Maskhadov did stick by Basayev’s side as Basayev tried to annex Dagestan. He stood by his side during the theater campaign, and only after Beslan did most find his renounciation to be sincere.

By the way, Basayev was named the Commander of the Chechen Armed Forces in 1996 and then prime minister of Chechnya in 1998.

As for wahhabism in chechnya, here is a interesting article.

As for the rest… Ok, so US was not crazy about the communists during the Cold War, your point?

The powerful actors in this tragedy are the Russians, and thus the overwhelming responsibility lies in their hands for what has happened and for the ending of this humanitarian catastrophe.

The growth of Wahhabism in Chechnya did not happen until after the First Chechen War. Maskhadov was not a Wahhabist, neither was Dudaev. But, as has been the pattern for American imperialsim – undermine Sihanouk, so Cambodia falls into the hands of Pol Pot; repression of Communist opposition to Shah, leading to religious revolution rather than secular; refusal to negotiate with Ho Chi Mihn, forcing a democrat who idolised the founding fathers of the USA towards the Communist bloc, leading to a brutalising war; adopting a ridiculously hostile stance towards the young revolutionary Cuba, pushing the nation towards dictatorship and a seige mentality; and on and on. A pattern of violent rejection of national self-determination brutalising the people and pushing them and/or their leaders towards extremist ideology.

"This is specifically about the BBC. ‘Get away’ certainly implies moral condemnation of that which is ‘gotten away’."

Ok, let me rephrase myself. No wonder BBC finds it to be acceptable…

"Don’t tell me that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Putin – an ex-KGB butcher and no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values."

Right, because it’s that simple. Either I am with Chechens, or I am with Putin, right? Or is it that anyone who’s fighting Putin is automatically a hero? Doesn’t it it tell you something that these Chechen "rebels" are Wahhabi – a form of Islam that is foreign to Chechnya (came there in the early 90’s with the influx of Saudi $)? Basayev is a Wahabbi. Hattab was a wahabbi (and a Jordanian), same goes for Gelayev, Barayev, etc. Can you name a non wahabbi chechen "rebel" warlord? Don’t you see a pattern here?

Are these "rebels" non butchers? They have beheaded quite a number of civilians, moderate imams, priests, not to mention pow’s. Friends of "human rights" and "civilized values"?? Blowing up trains, taking over and setting bombs in the theater? School in beslan? Hospital in Budyonovsk???

Who started the 2nd Chechen war, by the way? Any idea?