Bharat Rakshak

Acharya wrote:

Carl_T wrote: not nearly on the same level of the violence and brutality Chechens have suffered for the past 200 years.

Terrorism is not an answer for any grievance.

Terrorism is not the answer, and I am not implying it is, but why do we not say the same and speak with the same unequivocal condemnation for things Russia has done and will do to them?

I support good relations with Russia, so I am only speaking on the individual level.

Russian amb to India yesterday on NDTV:

We know where these terrorists are getting training and funding from. It is in the neighborhood of India.

NDTV anchor: Sir, do you mean Pak?

Amb: We all know, both India and Russia , in which country these guys are given patronage and carry out attacks on "aam log" in both our countries. I am a diplomat and so will not take names. You can draw conclusions.

Carl_T wrote: why do we not say the same and speak with the same unequivocal condemnation for things Russia has done and will do to them?

I support good relations with Russia, so I am only speaking on the individual level.

Is India strong in the world stage to talk about all these. Can it take of the mess in its own neighborhood.

Russians have not done anything bad to us .In fact, they have heldped us in many troubled time then why do we need to qualify any response to them when they have been hit by the Islamist terrorists inspired by the very same dogma responsible for the blood of many innocent Indians. What is that which Chechen has done for India that their issues must be brought into sympathetic context at this conjecture?

Acharya wrote:

Carl_T wrote: why do we not say the same and speak with the same unequivocal condemnation for things Russia has done and will do to them?

I support good relations with Russia, so I am only speaking on the individual level.

Is India strong in the world stage to talk about all these. Can it take of the mess in its own neighborhood.

As I said I support good relations with Russia and I'm not talking about what India should do. I am speaking on the individual level. Why should we as individuals not condemn killings by Russia in the same voice we do when terrorist attacks happen in Moscow?

Carl_T wrote:
Is India strong in the world stage to talk about all these. Can it take of the mess in its own neighborhood.
As I said I support good relations with Russia and I'm not talking about what India should do. I am speaking on the individual level. Why should we as individuals not condemn killings by Russia in the same voice we do when terrorist attacks happen in Moscow?

Why dont you do it for countries like US, China etc. Try it and find out

Acharya wrote:

Carl_T wrote:
Is India strong in the world stage to talk about all these. Can it take of the mess in its own neighborhood.
As I said I support good relations with Russia and I'm not talking about what India should do. I am speaking on the individual level. Why should we as individuals not condemn killings by Russia in the same voice we do when terrorist attacks happen in Moscow?

Why dont you do it for countries like US, China etc. Try it and find out

China, sure. I don't think it is remotely comparable with the US. Although in the US, plenty of people do protest.

First of all RIP to the victims.

Carl_T wrote:Terrorism is not the answer, and I am not implying it is, but why do we not say the same and speak with the same unequivocal condemnation for things Russia has done and will do to them?

I support good relations with Russia, so I am only speaking on the individual level.

What Russia did to Chechens and SL did to LTTE( post Rajiv death) are real wars against terror. Coletral damage is expected. I wish India does the same in Kashmir instead of spinning some chanikyan things.

Inspite of greatest achievements, there will be misses. Besalan killing and then this Moscow blasts are those misses. These two attacks over a period of four to five years is not a big deal. It is far better than monthly music that we used to have.

Muppalla wrote:
What Russia did to Chechens and SL did to LTTE( post Rajiv death) are real wars against terror. Coletral damage is expected.

Chechen killings of Russian civilians are indeed terror. But when Russia does the same to Chechen civilians, why do we call it collateral damage?

The way I see it, both sides have used violence on a large scale in order to either create or defend their respective states. Why is one side legitimate?

btw, why "post Rajiv death"?

Carl_T wrote: China, sure. I don't think it is remotely comparable with the US. Although in the US, plenty of people do protest.

What's so great about the US?

They lied through their teeth to have their way in Iraq.

Or is being killed by the US not as painful as being killed by Russia?

All is fair in politics, no?

chetak wrote:

Carl_T wrote: China, sure. I don't think it is remotely comparable with the US. Although in the US, plenty of people do protest.

What's so great about the US?

They lied through their teeth to have their way in Iraq.

Or is being killed by the US not as painful as being killed by Russia?

All is fair in politics, no?

I thought you were referring to Afghanistan. However, Iraq, the answer to that is quite simple. I live in the US and favor the American state over the Iraqi. I don't live in Russia or Chechnya, so I don't see why one side is more legitimate than the other.

Carl_T wrote:
China, sure. I don't think it is remotely comparable with the US. Although in the US, plenty of people do protest.

Why not. Thousands of civilians in various countries Iraq, Afg-Pak are collateral damage

Iraq, I responded above. Afghanistan was retaliatory violence in response to an unprovoked attack. The same cannot be said for Russia and Chechnya.

Moreover, being a resident of the US, I would support that nation. Other people don't have to agree with that.

Carl_T wrote: I thought you were referring to Afghanistan. However, Iraq, the answer to that is quite simple. I live in the US and favor the American state over the Iraqi. I don't live in Russia or Chechnya, so I don't see why one side is more legitimate than the other.

How would you feel if you lived in Iraq or even Afghanistan?

I am very sure that plenty of iraqis favor their own state over the USA.

One's feelings for the US is pre determined by which end of the gun one is looking at.

Carl_T wrote:
Moreover, being a resident of the US, I would support that nation. Other people don't have to agree with that.

Dont bring up this issue here. It is simple

Carl_T wrote: I thought you were referring to Afghanistan. However, Iraq, the answer to that is quite simple. I live in the US and favor the American state over the Iraqi. I don't live in Russia or Chechnya, so I don't see why one side is more legitimate than the other.

Ah, the great Anglo-Saxon sense of morality and 'fair-play' on display. At least you are open and shameless about it unlike for example British folk who would maintain that they are doing 'nation-building' in Iraq.

Carl_T wrote:Iraq, I responded above. Afghanistan was retaliatory violence in response to an unprovoked attack. The same cannot be said for Russia and Chechnya.

Moreover, being a resident of the US, I would support that nation. Other people don't have to agree with that.

Being allies and victims of the same terror groups Indians will overwhelmingly support Russia. And as you said "other people don't have to agree with that". No emotions 100% objectivity onlee.

sum wrote:Russian amb to India yesterday on NDTV:

We know where these terrorists are getting training and funding from. It is in the neighborhood of India.

NDTV anchor: Sir, do you mean Pak?

Amb: We all know, both India and Russia , in which country these guys are given patronage and carry out attacks on "aam log" in both our countries. I am a diplomat and so will not take names. You can draw conclusions.

The Russian ambassador and especially his boss Putin would be well advised to be "“realistic'' in its attitude towards Pakistan and take into consideration the action taken by Islamabad against some militant organizations operating along its border with Afghanistan."
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/13/stories ... 571900.htm

Trying to pet and cuddle a viper is not going to stop it from biting you, and a Pakis are fairly similar (with apology to vipers).

munna wrote:

Carl_T wrote:Iraq, I responded above. Afghanistan was retaliatory violence in response to an unprovoked attack. The same cannot be said for Russia and Chechnya.

Moreover, being a resident of the US, I would support that nation. Other people don't have to agree with that.

Being allies and victims of the same terror groups Indians will overwhelmingly support Russia. And as you said "other people don't have to agree with that". No emotions 100% objectivity onlee.

Well said.
If After loosing millions of lives at the hands of islamist barbarians Indians still in search of objectivity /equal equal between the Islamist and the civilized world , they deserve every slap they get. Its criminal to indulge in moral equivalecy between islamists and the rest of civilized world.

bart wrote: Ah, the great Anglo-Saxon sense of morality and 'fair-play' on display. At least you are open and shameless about it unlike for example British folk who would maintain that they are doing 'nation-building' in Iraq.

There is no mention of morality here. I think India should support Russia because Russia helps us, but all I'm saying is - on the individual level why do we make a moral judgment on the legitimacy of one side over the other?

munna wrote:

Carl_T wrote:Iraq, I responded above. Afghanistan was retaliatory violence in response to an unprovoked attack. The same cannot be said for Russia and Chechnya.

Moreover, being a resident of the US, I would support that nation. Other people don't have to agree with that.

Being allies and victims of the same terror groups Indians will overwhelmingly support Russia. And as you said "other people don't have to agree with that". No emotions 100% objectivity onlee.

When? Chechens have nothing to say about India. They are not the ones who bomb our trains or kill our soldiers or shoot people in train stations.

Do we say the same things about Kurds in Turkey?

Carl_T wrote:There is no mention of morality here. I think India should support Russia because Russia helps us, but all I'm saying is - on the individual level why do we make a moral judgment on the legitimacy of one side over the other?

Because at individual level too Indians have suffered and continue to suffer from these very forces's acts. Chechen fighters were a common occurrence in Kashmir valley and have killed a lot of sons of India. Can any normal Indian forget it? Sorry sir, fake objectivity is luxury of the well protected, well fed and heavily armed. We are vulnerable, poorly defended and under attack from the same idiots. There is no individual-shindividual objectivity involved here. There is a saying in Punjabi

Aap Mare Jag Parlok
"Once you are dead, nothing matters"

Similarly we are victims of terror and we do not care about "root causes" or any other high falutin hoo haa. We support India and its allies only. No objectivity allowed...

Carl_T wrote:

bart wrote: Ah, the great Anglo-Saxon sense of morality and 'fair-play' on display. At least you are open and shameless about it unlike for example British folk who would maintain that they are doing 'nation-building' in Iraq.

There is no mention of morality here. I think India should support Russia because Russia helps us, but all I'm saying is - on the individual level why do we make a moral judgment on the legitimacy of one side over the other?

Why are you then saying the the large-scale massacre of innocent Iraqis by the US is not a problem for you (or in other words legitimate) since you are a US resident, while if the Russians do the same we need to speak out?

The Russian collateral damage is in response to terrorism and religious separatism backed by trans-national Islamist fanatics. By comparison what did Iraq and Saddam (who was secular BTW) do to America to deserve being systematically starved and economically destroyed by sanctions for over a decade and then brutally attacked like that?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion but please dont peddle it on this thread or lecture us, we have been dealing with this menace from the 10th century and the Greeks/Slavs have many centuries of fighting the same ideology. Al-Quaida, 911 and other US 'concerns' are a joke by comparision.

munna wrote:
Because at individual level too Indians have suffered and continue to suffer from these very forces's acts. Chechen fighters were a common occurrence in Kashmir valley and have killed a lot of sons of India. Can any normal Indian forget it? Sorry sir, fake objectivity is luxury of the well protected, well fed and heavily armed. We are vulnerable, poorly defended and under attack from the same idiots. There is no individual-shindividual objectivity involved here. There is a saying in Punjabi

Aap Mare Jag Parlok
"Once you are dead, nothing matters"

Similarly we are victims of terror and we do not care about "root causes" or any other high falutin hoo haa. We support India and its allies only. No objectivity allowed...

When were we attacked by Chechens? To my knowledge, our fight is with those next door not with a people in the Caucasus. Of course, if shown otherwise, I will take back what I said.

Carl_T wrote:Afghanistan was retaliatory violence in response to an unprovoked attack[/b].

How many People were of Afghan nationality ?

Carl_T wrote:When? Chechens have nothing to say about India. They are not the ones who bomb our trains or kill our soldiers or shoot people in train stations.

Do we say the same things about Kurds in Turkey?

Foreign militants creating mayhem in Kashmir: Omar Abdullah

he bone of contention was the supposed role of foreign militants in bringing a bad name to Kashmir. A charged Mr. Abdullah remarked that foreign militants, who had nothing to do with Kashmir, were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion.

It prompted a journalist to ask Mr. Abdullah whether he implied that "80,000 graves of martyrs in Kashmir consisted of Chechens, Afghans and Arabs." An angry Mr. Abdullah appealed to the press not to distort his comments and asserted that he never talked about militants of Kashmir origin

Terrorist outlaws – or a group with friends in high places?

In return, Pakistani, as well as Arab and Chechen fighters, were among Lashkar forces sent into Kashmir against Indian forces.

Oh the chechens love India onlee

I repeat Chechens have killed Indians and Indian soldiers on Indian soil.

chetak wrote: One's feelings for the US is pre determined by which end of the gun one is looking at.

That is exactly my question...

munna wrote:I repeat Chechens have killed Indians and Indian soldiers on Indian soil.

Ok that is what I wanted to know. I'll take my points back then.

Take this discussio offline. If it is a personal opinion subject and also for fishing information it can be done offline.


Such demands as above are an admin prerogative. Pls do not persist. JE Menon

Marten wrote: ^Personal values leading to specific opinions! I might reside in the US, but it does not change my view of any actions that the GOTUS takes that go against my personal values. If Russia decides to defend its sovereign rights in a certain state against a group of people who choose religion over ethnicity or nationality, I can identify with the reasons for the Russian move, and might therefore support their cause. Simply because the same group has also attacked my fellow citizens on Indian soil. Whereas if the GOTUS invades a country for a reason that I believe is related to the POTUS/VCPOTUS alliances with oil families, I would condemn the action. There are two very different objectives and I choose to view them in that light. In both cases, the result might be the loss of civilian lives, but my filters will apply clearly to one case and not in the other.

That is why I was asking these questions. To me it seems like it is an ethnic conflict, like Kurds in Turkey. We don't get pumped up when Turkey fights terrorism in its land. Rather we complain about how brutal and mean they are.

But Munna clarified it.

Carl_T wrote:That is why I was asking these questions. To me it seems like it is an ethnic conflict, like Kurds in Turkey. We don't get pumped up when Turkey fights terrorism in its land. Rather we complain about how brutal and mean they are.

It is totally an ethnic thing. The establishment of a Caucasus Emirate and the imposition of Sharia is a total ethnic thing.

I guess you missed all those videos of Russian conscripts being beheaded with verses from the Koran being read in the background. Again a totally ethnic thing.

Yes when the attack the West they are terrorists but when they do the same in Russia or India they are "freedom fighters", "gunmen", "militants" etc.

hulaku wrote: Yes when the attack the West they are terrorists but when they do the same in Russia or India they are "freedom fighters", "gunmen", "militants" etc.

I remember seeing the CCTV frame of Kasab carrying an AK47, in a British news site, and the caption said 'Alleged Gunman'.

hulaku wrote:

Carl_T wrote:That is why I was asking these questions. To me it seems like it is an ethnic conflict, like Kurds in Turkey. We don't get pumped up when Turkey fights terrorism in its land. Rather we complain about how brutal and mean they are.

It is totally an ethnic thing. The establishment of a Caucasus Emirate and the imposition of Sharia is a total ethnic thing.

I guess you missed all those videos of Russian conscripts being beheaded with verses from the Koran being read in the background. Again a totally ethnic thing.

Yes when the attack the West they are terrorists but when they do the same in Russia or India they are "freedom fighters", "gunmen", "militants" etc.

Ethnic...they have been fighting for it for a few hundred years now from the day Peter invaded them. I don't understand why they would become patriotic Russians...

Carl_T wrote:

hulaku wrote:Carl_T>>That is why I was asking these questions. To me it seems like it is an ethnic conflict, like Kurds in Turkey.

It is totally an ethnic thing. The establishment of a Caucasus Emirate and the imposition of Sharia is a total ethnic thing.

I guess you missed all those videos of Russian conscripts being beheaded with verses from the Koran being read in the background. Again a totally ethnic thing.

Yes when the attack the West they are terrorists but when they do the same in Russia or India they are "freedom fighters", "gunmen", "militants" etc.

Ethnic...they have been fighting for it for a few hundred years now from the day Peter invaded them. I don't understand why they would become patriotic Russians...

Then Russia is welcome to continue Peter's war. I support them. Just as US citizens support US in US's war for geo-political ambitions, and dont worry about collateral damage.

If it about ethnicity though, they should stop reading the Koran, their ethnic forefathers did not write it and neither did it come to them through peaceful choice. They should also stop justifying it in the name of religion. Confuses the hell out of simple folks like me.

You cant decide when to be ethnic and when not.

Suicide bombers kill at least 38 in Moscow subway

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said militants on the Afghan-Pakistan border may have helped organize the attacks.

Some Russian officials have said North Caucasus insurgents have ties to al Qaeda whose leaders are thought to be in hiding along the Pakistan border, but many analysts dispute any link.

Asked if there could have been any foreign involvement in Monday's attacks, Lavrov did not mention any group by name, but Interfax quoted him as replying: "I do not exclude that."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S0FM20100329

Sanku wrote:
Then Russia is welcome to continue Peter's war. I support them. Just as US citizens support US in US's war for geo-political ambitions, and dont worry about collateral damage.

If it about ethnicity though, they should stop reading the Koran, their ethnic forefathers did not write it and neither did it come to them through peaceful choice. They should also stop justifying it in the name of religion. Confuses the hell out of simple folks like me.

You cant decide when to be ethnic and when not.

My mistake, not Peter, I believe it was Ivan actually.

What is this deciding between ethnicity and religion? They have been resisting invasive forces since before Islam. All of a sudden their ethnic identities disappear after becoming Islamic and they choose between the two?

I dont know what stuff you guys smoke! These guys are terrorists,for gods sake! They just bombed the worlds highly used metro and killed close to 50 people. Imagine this explosion in a subway in NewYork. The world sure would have reacted in a different way. The whole of BRF community needs to get their bearings right.

1. These people who bombed the metro are "Terrorists".
2. They all are linked to the central hub in "Pakistan".
3. The "United States of America" is indirectly supporting the Pakistani Military-Islamist ideologues in order to gain greater control of whole Asia.

Please,,Pleasseee!!.. Dont forget these facts!

Altair-
There is no doubt they are terrorists. I just think what Russia has done to the people of that region is worse.

And no, not the whole BRF community, it is just me saying that. So I will stop with the "= =" stuff.

The same Chechen analogy that you are showing here can be applied to Kashmir?

Would you say that the Indians have been doing much worse in Kashmir than what the Kashmiri terrorists do in India.

Think about it with your Russia-baitng yankee mentality.