What ails the world?

I was just going through the other thread about the moscow theatre seize and the end in which more than 100 hostages were killed and about 50 rebels killed. I was just thinking about why exactly all this pain and suffering should take place.

Many Islamists might feel that Chechens are not given the right to rule or independence and hence the freedom struggle. Russian nationalists feel that Chechen’s are trying to break their country. I would like to ask people (esp. who support secessionism) what would be your reaction if your country is faced with a same threat. You will find that Muslim countries and citizens complain of excesses against Muslims, but what do you think will happen if some part of a Muslim land tries to break off from its main land. (We know what happened in Bangladesh and East Timor).

When ever armies are in civilian population, fighting an masked enemy excesses are bound to happen. You can’t prevent that.

Death of hostages is really sad, what will be your decision, if you were the premier of your country and some terrorists are holding hostages and asking for freedom of some part of your country?

east timor lost 250,000 people out 1 million to get independance. bangaldesh lost 3 million. so both paid very high cost for their independance.

A great many things. Blame them on muslims and get it over with. Good to see you back chilli

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
east timor lost 250,000 people out 1 million to get independance. bangaldesh lost 3 million. so both paid very high cost for their independance.
[/QUOTE]

and so did Pakistan, atleast I know my parents lost more than half their families.

Libya had the same situation, anyone read the history of omar mukhtar..

Freedom does not come cheap it seems like.

If people want independence, why not give it to them no matter whether is chechenia, khalistan, east timor, kashmir or palestine. We as individuals, and bodies like Un should have an equal measuring stick for it.

heh chilli? I thought he would have grown up by now

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
east timor lost 250,000 people out 1 million to get independance. bangaldesh lost 3 million. so both paid very high cost for their independance.
[/QUOTE]

No, it was you cowards who paid the price for Bangaldesh's liberation... Dont tell me you didnt train the Mukti Bahini for free... And dont cry now that the Muj are doing what the Chechans did to the Russians

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
east timor lost 250,000 people out 1 million to get independance. bangaldesh lost 3 million. so both paid very high cost for their independance.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, and innocent Kashmiris are also losing alot of lives for their freedom, but they will get there!

It is interesting to note that Russia granted autonomy and outright independence to many former states of the USSR. Some of these had oil resources as well as mineral deposits. Chechnya has fought against the Russians from before the dawn of Communism. What is it that the Russians need from Chechnya? Conversely, what might Chechnya need from Russia? The economic well being of the area could benefit from links with other large, more diverse countries. I suppose these could be Islamic ones, but would the Saudis be able to step forward with aid, for instance? Would anyone else for that matter?

I am not aware of how old the conflict in chechnya is, but all I would say is, these radical groups might lead to the change in the thinking of the world and afflict policies of governments.

For eg., say today australia is pre-dominantly christian and is united and has a say in international affairs. If Australia opens its door for say Afghans and other refugees and over a period of time (Say 100 years) their population would have swelled to over millions of people and they might even start a movement for independence.

My question that no one answered is if there is a separatist movement in your country, say sindh wants independence from Pakistan and a terrorist movement starts there, and if you are the premier of Pakistan then what do you do. Will you send Red cross or the Army?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Victory: *

My question that no one answered is if there is a separatist movement in your country, say sindh wants independence from Pakistan and a terrorist movement starts there, and if you are the premier of Pakistan then what do you do. Will you send Red cross or the Army?
[/QUOTE]

if it is a terrorist movement my actions will be different than if it is a freedom fighting movement. :)

Why is it that all majority-area Muslims have to have their own nation? And why is violence aimed at civilians the preferred method used to achieve it? When in all of history has that tactic been used successfully?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Why is it that all majority-area Muslims have to have their own nation?
[/quote]

DEMOCRACY!

[quote]
And why is violence aimed at civilians the preferred method used to achieve it?
[/quote]

Doesn't it other way around?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Why is it that all majority-area Muslims have to have their own nation? And why is violence aimed at civilians the preferred method used to achieve it? When in all of history has that tactic been used successfully?
[/QUOTE]

hmm Pakistan, Libya? I dont recall violence aimed at civilians.
Self determination is a right is it not? and when suppressed and brutally crushed would that movement remain peaceful as well?

You can have amiable parting of ways and seperation, or you can have a conflict. Kinda like when US came into being..

So the issue here is niether with armed struggle but with violence against civilians.

Now I dont condone it, but when a kid goes and blows up his classmates and teachers in a school shooting we have all this detailed abalysis of how kids see more violence in video games and Tv and movies which affects them, and how they are treated by others or how they feel they are treated fuels it etc etc.

Multiply it by several thousand times and you have amind fertile to be planted with ideas of revenge, innocent lives of my foe's group as exchange for innocent lives of my group.

I think Palestinians killing civilians to push for their goals is just as bad as Israeli military killing Palestinans to promotetheir own goals.

Is killing of civilians by military forces any better than killing of civilians by a suicide bomber. I dont think so. Both are wrong.

anyways, back to work..

Fraudia asks: "Self determination is a right is it not? "

Depends. It is certainly not an individual right belonging to each person. I don't have the right to declare my home an independent country and secede from the US. It is a right that belongs to some collective group but not all collective groups. My homeowners association represents a collective group but it doesn't have the right to form its own government and declare its independence from the US any more than I do with my own home. The Mormans in Utah do not have a collective right of self-determination to have Utah seceed from the US.

Why is it that you or anyone else thinks that just because some enclave or conclave of Muslims exists in some community or area somewhere in the world that they become a collective group that should have this so-called right of self determination? If 5 million Muslims moved into a community in upstate New York, would they have a right of self-determination to form their own country?

An interesting question in this regard is who has or should have the final say or who is the final arbiter as to which collective group has a right to self-determination and independence. There are all kinds of rag-tag groups of people all over the world who use the "right of self-determination" as their mantra to justify perpetrating violence against others.

We're missing the key point here, why does someone demand a right to self-determination/independence in the first place? It is only when your basic rights are violated and your freedoms are withheld or due to oppression/discrimination against who you are and what you believe.

If tomorrow the mormons are prosecuted solely on the basis of who they are, over time they may develop feelings of resentment and isolation and hopelessness towards the government not being their true representative and may afterall demand a right to self-determination/independence.

If indeed Muslim separatist movements are based on their "basic rights are violated and freedoms are withheld or due to oppression/discrimination against who they are and what they believe... are prosecuted solely on the basis of who they are".

Why is it? Why are they so routinely treated this way?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
We're missing the key point here, why does someone demand a right to self-determination/independence in the first place? It is only when your basic rights are violated and your freedoms are withheld or due to oppression/discrimination against who you are and what you believe.

If tomorrow the mormons are prosecuted solely on the basis of who they are, over time they may develop feelings of resentment and isolation and hopelessness towards the government not being their true representative and may afterall demand a right to self-determination/independence.
[/QUOTE]

Very good point. I'd put a little twist on that though. It is because the group PERCEIVES that its basic rights are violated. That may not be the reality. Sticking with the Mormons so as not to offend many ( :) ) Fundamentalist Mormons still believe that it is their right and duty from scripture to have multiple wives. When these guys are arrested and prosecuted for bigamy, they strongly believe that their basic rights and freedoms are being denied because of who they are and what they believe.

A few of these guys have attempted to live together in armed compounds to keep the sherrif and feds away so they can live their lives as they see fit. I suppose there are some who would be sympathetic to them and argue that they have a right of self-determination. I don't share that view.

Taking things even further, there are, I'm sure, still some bizzarre religious cults that believe human and animal sacrifice is fundmental to the practice of their religion. They could easily maintain they are bding prosecuted because of who they are and what they believe. I doubt many would say such a group had a legitimate right of self-determination such that they would support or approve such a group waging violence to obtain independence.

Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Depends. It is certainly not an individual right belonging to each person. I don't have the right to declare my home an independent country and secede from the US. *

No I disagree, One single person would still have the right to self determination but what that right covers may be different. I mean if I am a nudist living in Saudi Arabia, I cant change teh whole area to my liking and I can determine whether I am willing to give up that or give up the place I am in.

When it starts becoming a larger and larger group, and they have legitimate concerns then they can start that sort of movement.

** My homeowners association represents a collective group but it doesn't have the right to form its own government and declare its independence from the US any more than I do with my own home. The Mormans in Utah do not have a collective right of self-determination to have Utah seceed from the US. **

Well the Utah example is interesting, They feel that they are being treated fairly, and from what I know they are being and they have been.
Would I have any interest in creating a breakaway republic within US, No, because I am treated well here for the most part and most importantly no one is forcing me to give up my belief or lifestyle.

Now here is the big one.. If there is a sizeable minority, which has legitimate grievances which are not being addressed and/or are being suppressed officially, then they should protest, and then at what point in time do you just say, The system is not working for me.

That is what happened with USA right, taxation without representation, boston teat party and badabing badaboom, we have a new country ( kinda strange for me to say as a pakistani-british-american since my new country got its independence from my old country, from which my older country got its independence as well :D)

*Why is it that you or anyone else thinks that just because some enclave or conclave of Muslims exists in some community or area somewhere in the world that they become a collective group that should have this so-called right of self determination? If 5 million Muslims moved into a community in upstate New York, would they have a right of self-determination to form their own country? *

You took my point incorrectly, no one should ask for independence just because they want it because they are different, but conmditions have to exist, if the group gets larger and larger and it has grievances that dont get resolved, and it is being systematically denied what its wills are, you will have a scenario at hand.

*An interesting question in this regard is who has or should have the final say or who is the final arbiter as to which collective group has a right to self-determination and independence. *

Now thats the big question with no real answer i suppose, Although in my view UN should have the final say.

*There are all kinds of rag-tag groups of people all over the world who use the "right of self-determination" as their mantra to justify perpetrating violence against others. *

Oh I have no love lost for rag tag groups, I have lost a few friends to the goons of these rag tag groups.

There are groups which hijack and entire group for its own agenda and hold an entire group captive and show themselves as champions of that group. Kinda like OBL grandstanding as some leader for muselims the world over whereas he is nothing buta two bit thug with dellusions of grandeur and his own agenda, but all of a sudden ppl start thinking, oh the muslims want this the muslims want that. Some weak minded individuals fall to his propoganda and become his fans even though he could care less.

If a group of 5000 texans start creating havoc in texas to make it independent, and say that they represent all hispanics, do they really. No.. but if the group is not some rag tag group of fanatics but a good size group lets say 80% of the population, what happens..I mean we do have the example of civil war here anyways.

Either way its a tough question.

I think the wiseset advice I could give to someone interested in the subject of Chechen autonomy/independence would be to research the whole sordid affair thoroughly. From my limited knowledge, it seems Chechnya is/was a victim of Russian imperialism, before, during and after the specter of Communism. Many former Russian States are now independant. Again, what is it about Chechnya that makes the modern Russian State want to spend blood and money to keep within their dominion? Many Central Asian areas were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. This was accomplished by a mass deportation of peoples by Stalin. The only possibility that comes to mind is that by granting independence, the Russians would be an active participant in creating a sovereign base for further operations by terrorists against itself. I am not sure that this senario is assured. 80,000 or more Russian troops are being used in this endeavor. Their actions only embitter the locals for well into the future.