Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 So that's your measure, Armen? Well, the Ubykh are extinct, and Abkhazians are a minority in Abkhazia. I suppose Armenians should be grateful that there are 60,000 Armenians in Istanbul, all empires are like that... style_images/master/snapback.png Yes, that's my measure. Ubykhs originally numbered a 100.000 people. Moreover, each and every village in North Caucasus declares itself a separate people. Ubikhs, Ingushes, Chechens, Cherkess are the same people. Ubykhs being the minority among them may well assimilate with Chechens for example. Abkhazians are currently assisted by Russia. Stormy, I heard that there are 60.000 Armenians in Istanbul 3 years ago or so. Russians have been writing novels about Chechens since the first time they met them in 19 century, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think he saw them as potential collabolateurs as well during WWII. Not to mention the Crimean Tatars who were deported as well since they were actively colluding with the Nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 BTW, Armen, you're giving Stalin too much credit. Ever wonder why all along the coast of the Black Sea there are more Russians than anyone else? It's because this strip was ethnically cleansed before Bolsheviks were heard of. style_images/master/snapback.png Stormy, if you can understand who were Bolsheviks, you can surely understand why they did that. Why did they place Karabagh and Nakhichevan under Azerbaijan? Why did they mess up all nationalities policy? The Russian empire was a empire like any other one. However, it was falling appart to become a normal European capitalist state in 1917. They prevented that and built a socialy impotent military giant. They knew exactly what's gonna happen if this giant starts to desintegrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think he saw them as potential collabolateurs as well during WWII. Not to mention the Crimean Tatars who were deported as well since they were actively colluding with the Nazis. style_images/master/snapback.png Stalin did not require inconvenient things like "evidence" or "reason" to justify his actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think he saw them as potential collabolateurs as well during WWII. style_images/master/snapback.png Sounds like something very familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Russians have been writing novels about Chechens since the first time they met them in 19 century, style_images/master/snapback.png Lermontov was Scottish, not Russian. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 They were guilty of committing crimes in the future. Yeah, that sounds familiar. Wasn't that from the "Minority Report"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Lermontov was Scottish, not Russian. <_< style_images/master/snapback.png Tolstoy? Lermontov was a Scottish some six generations back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Lermontov was Scottish, not Russian. <_< style_images/master/snapback.png Yeah, and speaking of Scottish. Australia and New Zealand. I believe the Russian Scottish are much better than the British Scottish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Correction Arpa jan, Bolsheviks where not Russian. There was no 1 single Russian among Bolshevik leadership. style_images/master/snapback.png Armen, read my post again and tell us which of the names I cited are ethnic Russians. Are they not all from the tribe that is still waiting for Armegaddon, i.e. the time when the rest of the world will be incinerated by fire and brimstone leaving only the "chosen". Let them? Did Louis XIV put it correctly? "Apres moi les deluges". Was he quoting that Book of Lies, aka the Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 (edited) I believe all the nations/nationalities who want to live free should be let free. Russia is no better than any other empire and although Chechens are not exactly the civilized type of people they should nevertheless be given a chance to have their own country and run their lives by themselves. If they decide to attack neighbouring countries then they can be fought by all means but trying to dominate them is wrong and history shows it is not effective either. In addition, if all Caucasus peoples unite then no empires near or remote will be able to manipulate and humiliate them any more. For that to happen first they must be reasonably free and able to see that they are natural allies. Edit: correction, Russian empire has been much better than the Ottoman empire, just wanted to acknowledge. Edited September 3, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Who and what the hell is a Chechen? This is not a rhetorical question as I don't know. It seems like Russia is paying back for all her sins, when in 1917 they had the chance to cleanse the Cuacasus and the Transcaucasus of all those pests, they instead retreated with their tails tucked between their hindlegs to participate in a revolution that some people who did not have Russia's welfare in mind had fomented a "revolution". And in the process they left us at the mercy of the grand-uncles of the Chechens. The hell with them all! Russia should incinerate that region and declare to the world the end of all Chechen, Turk or whatever the hell name they are known by. Hmmm, Arpa, keep the date the same but why not replace "Russia" with "Turkey" and make the "pests" Armenians. And, since you seem to be in the mode for supporting genocide, why not brush up on your Grey Wolves salute while you are at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hmmm, Arpa, keep the date the same but why not replace "Russia" with "Turkey" and make the "pests" Armenians. And, since you seem to be in the mode for supporting genocide, why not brush up on your Grey Wolves salute while you are at it. style_images/master/snapback.png BTC, you as a Brit or Scott must never even think of blaming anyone. Let Russia do its part of Genocides like Britain did and supported. As if there has been any country that has recognized Armenian Genocide for moral reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 BTC, you as a Brit or Scott must never even think of blaming anyone. Let Russia do its part of Genocides like Britain did and supported. As if there has been any country that has recognized Armenian Genocide for moral reasons. style_images/master/snapback.png I suggest you stop yourself before you become the "ArS" as in arse. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 (edited) Tolstoy? Lermontov was a Scottish some six generations back. style_images/master/snapback.png Tolstoy's "Hadji Murad" wa published in 1904. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" was from 1840. Though Pushkin's "A Captive of the Caucasus" was from 1820, it is set in the Western Caucasus, not Chechnia. Also, as a member of a race that seems to delight in claiming someone as "Armenian" even if they are barely 1/10th Armenian or even less, your "six generations back" comment is a bit ill-advised! Edited September 3, 2004 by bellthecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Steve, don't even think about going there... How about Irish, and the massacre of the Indians? You guys are the most curst race on Earth. If one needs to apply any kind of reciprocity with regard to crimes against humanity, Anglo-Saxons should be exterminated as rats. As to Arpa's definition of Chechens I totally agree - they are pests. Chechnya has never ever been independent country. To this day Chechens are just tribal union. All these small nations in Caucasus are remnants of ones glorious Khanates. The comparison about Armenians and Chechens and their rivals and 'masters' Turks and Russians is out of any common sense. First, Armenian terrorism was limited to executing Turkish officials and once taking as a hostage a Bank. Those pests, Chechens kill indiscriminately and readily declare Jihad to anyone who is not with them. Killing children and women is only typical for turko-altaic barbarians. Even if their cause is just, the simple fact that they joined the Azeris in their war against Armenia, without any reason is sufficient enough to categorize them as pests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Tolstoy's "Hadji Murad" wa published in 1904. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" was from 1840. Though Pushkin's "A Captive of the Caucasus" was from 1820, it is set in the Western Caucasus, not Chechnia. Also, as a member of a race that seems to delight in claiming someone as "Armenian" even if they are barely 1/10th Armenian or even less, your "six generations back" comment is a bit ill-advised! style_images/master/snapback.png There was a whole movement of Russian military elite agaist Tsar's policy in Caucasus. You just named three novelists that wrote about that and admired Caucasus. Not to mention the big list of Russian poets that wrote on and Cucasus. Maybe they didn't write about Chechens because they are who they are: bloodthirsty, lazy bastards who never even knew how to work except to kidnap people. Secondly, Russians developed Caucasus. I think Russian period was the only one when Chechens knew schools and education in their whole history. What did you guys did your colonies? And when did you Scotts become so "Diasporic" to search for Scotts in other countires? Lermontov criticized Russia becuase he loved it not for some other reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 I suggest you stop yourself before you become the "ArS" as in arse. <_< style_images/master/snapback.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Chechens are an indigenous population in the Caucasus, just like the Daghestanis, Kabardino-Malkars, etc., and Russians had no business in the Caucasus - they should have looked elsewhere for resorts on the sea! style_images/master/snapback.png Absolutely! But why look else ware when the oil reserve is so near and you get to call the shots? It's not Ok that US is in Iraq for oil but it's ok that Russians are in Chechnya for the same reason. Let's face it, the platform is the same: oil; the excuse: terrorism; the method: capture and propaganda. Feed people with fear and they will overlook your real agenda. Let's face it, the main source of hate is their relation to the Turks and their religion. It's always been about sovereignty and natural resources, and Russia’s policy was always about sacrificing the lives of citizens for the greater good of the government. Always was and always will be their motto. I don't have much time to write, but everyone who desires to be independent should be granted that right, whether they succeed or fail it's their problem. But as I've said you want to hold on the prospects of wealth. By the way the same situation is with Spain and Basque, I don't see Basques getting such negative press. Partly because they are not Muslim terrorists, but Roman Catholic ones, or Ireland where the terrorists are Protestant. By the way, I've been to Grozny when I was little, people are extremely friendly and warm, unlike people in Moscow who are most likely to sneer at you if you are a bit darker then the rest. Oooof I'll finish later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Steve, don't even think about going there... How about Irish, and the massacre of the Indians? You guys are the most curst race on Earth. If one needs to apply any kind of reciprocity with regard to crimes against humanity, Anglo-Saxons should be exterminated as rats. As to Arpa's definition of Chechens I totally agree - they are pests. Chechnya has never ever been independent country. To this day Chechens are just tribal union. All these small nations in Caucasus are remnants of ones glorious Khanates. The comparison about Armenians and Chechens and their rivals and 'masters' Turks and Russians is out of any common sense. First, Armenian terrorism was limited to executing Turkish officials and once taking as a hostage a Bank. Those pests, Chechens kill indiscriminately and readily declare Jihad to anyone who is not with them. Killing children and women is only typical for turko-altaic barbarians. Even if their cause is just, the simple fact that they joined the Azeris in their war against Armenia, without any reason is sufficient enough to categorize them as pests. style_images/master/snapback.png Once again - replace "Russians" with "Turks" and "Chechens" with "Armenians" in the above rant and we have a typical example of Turkish racist propaganda against Armenia. If you and ArmenSarg don't realise this then you are both really in a serious state of delusion. Do you go to bed with Putin's face on your pillow every night, or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 By the way the same situation is with Spain and Basque, I don't see Basques getting such negative press. Partly because they are not Muslim terrorists, but Roman Catholic ones, or Ireland where the terrorists are Protestant.style_images/master/snapback.png Errrr ... in Ireland the terrorists (so called) were Catholic, and I don't recall religion ever being mentioned as a component of ETA (the exact opposite in fact -Spanish ultra-nationalists, especially under Franco, tended also to be fanatical Catholics). The irony about Grozny is that it was an overwhelmingly Russian populated city before the Russian army had its way with the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Then, isn't it safe to conclude that the actions of 9/11 were justified because of USA interference in the Middle East? Or maybe we should support Chechens' plight because they fought in a foreign war against us? Or maybe we should love Brits, because they refuse to accept the fact of the Genocide and allied themselves with the Turks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-=VAHE=- Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 This is stupid. Take this converation to another topic. All I can say is the russians know how to deal with these terrorists and I hear this from some Americans too and that means kill them all. It really discourages terrorism. How many terrorists survived in the Theatre standoff? Did they kill them all there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 yes Vahe jan they did kill them all including the normal pepole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 all the nations/nationalities who want to live free should be let free.True. It may take some logistics and negotiations, but it is not by necessity a utopian dream, except that the powers of status quo make it so. Edit: correction, Russian empire has been much better than the Ottoman empire, just wanted to acknowledge. Well, there is not enough "dynamic range", so to speak, to have an empire that is "much better" than another. They are all evil creations, and a collective expression of extreme arrogance and brutality. They betray, at worst a total lack of moral fiber, or at best unabashed hypocrisy on the part of the empire-builders. Ottoman empire was not a particularly "bad" empire (in a scale defined by other empires) until it started an accelerated collapse in the 19th century. Sure, it always had a massacre here, an unprovoked war there, enslavement, theft, and all such fun and glorious stuff of empires, but it was a "normal" empire, and no more evil (possibly less) than the British or French empires. And then Abdulhamid came, and the rest is, well, history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.