Sharia in Chechnya OK'd by Russia

[Thorum]

Russia should have wiped Chechnya off the map when they had the chance!!

Islamic Law Allowed in Chechnya (http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/03/russiaislamic-law-allowed-in-chechnya.html)

"GROZNY, Russia (AP) — The bullnecked president of Chechnya emerged from afternoon prayers at the mosque and with chilling composure explained why seven young women who had been shot in the head deserved to die.

Ramzan Kadyrov said the women, whose bodies were found dumped by the roadside, had "loose morals" and were rightfully shot by male relatives in honor killings..."

Once again, thanks to the great blog, Islam in Action, and Christopher Logan for the story!!

[Lenny]

Russia should have wiped Chechnya off the map when they had the chance!!Hmm... Until the 1990s chaos, Chechens were mostly secular; never fanatical Muslims.

There were only 1.5 million Chechens vs. 150 million Russians, and Chechens were very poor in resources (a lot of the property in Chechnya as of 1991 was still owned by ethnic-Russians after Stalin gave it all away in the 1944 crackdown). So the Chechens reached out to whatever international support they could get*. As it happened, lots of Arabs and some other Muslims had Islamic-revivalist pretenses at the time (and still do), and so many Chechen nationalists dove head first into Islam(ism) to get their support. Thousands of Arab volunteers went to Chechnya, millions of dollars of Arab-bought weapons too.



* - It's exactly like Castro: he never actually wanted to be a Soviet puppet, but then the USA tried to topple his government. So he desperately reached out to anyone who was willing to give him a helping hand.

[Hors]

nt

[Thorum]

OK, Hors, what am I missing?

Lenny - And Islam is the religion of peace.

[Hors]

I don't get it. I made a double post and edited one with "nt", and now I see the post with the text removed and the one with "nothing there" still there?!

Anyway, I just pointed out that most of Chechens aren't that religious, and that the women in question were killed in accordance with Adat, the Mointain Law, and not Sharia.

[Thorum]

Do you dispute that Chechnya is an Islamic region? What do think of quotes such as this from Prague Watchdog (http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000015-000006-000010&lang=2)?:

"Эмиль Сулейманов, специально для Prague Watchdog
Ислам традиционно играет немаловажную роль в жизни чеченского общества, уже как минимум два столетия являясь составным элементом этнической самоидентификации, а в критические моменты национальной истории также мощным источником социальной мобилизации.
Исламизация Чечни
Мусульманская религия в крае начала рапространяться не раньше 14-15 вв. Этому способствовала миссионерская деятельность соседних дагестанцев (особенно кумыков), а также контакты в первую очередь равнинных чеченцев с соседними кабардинцами, ногайцами и крымскими татарами. В Ичкерии - высокогорной части Чечни, равно как и в Ингушетии (в которой, кстати, ранее имело распространение православие), ислам утвердился только к концу 18-началу 19 века.
Уровень реального религиозного самосознания чеченцев поднялся лишь в критические моменты истории - в периоды национально-освободительных войн против российской колониальной экспансии под руководством шейха Ушурмы Мансура (1785-1791), воителя-миссионера, который объединил под знаменем священной войны за веру десятки народов Северного Кавказа, а также во время властвования великого имама Шамиля (1834-1859).
Именно в десятилетия существования имамата Чечни и Дагестана (1840-1859) основополагающей правовой базой стал шариат, притеснив обычное право – «адаты» - в качестве нормообразующего общественного элемента. Однако и до сих пор в чеченском обществе все еще сильны доисламские обычаи и нормы, которые во многом «слились» с исламом и в настоящее время в представлениях чеченцев тесно ассоциируются с религией."


EDIT: The website contains English and Czech versions also.

[Hors]

Do you dispute that Chechnya is an Islamic region?

No. But they're not that religious. At least, they drink vodka :D

[Loki]

I don't get it. I made a double post and edited one with "nt", and now I see the post with the text removed and the one with "nothing there" still there?

A mod must have deleted the one double post at the same time you edited the other.

[Lenny]

Hors, since you Russians hate Chechens so much, why did you [meaning Russia] fight so hard to keep them in the Russian Federation? Isn't it a lot better to toss Chechnya out of the "federation", close the border, and deport every Chechen from Russian cities?

[Osweo]

Comrades, this is a horrendously complex matter, and I for one have learnt that it's best not to interfere unless you know exactly what you're on about.

[Hors]

Hors, since you Russians hate Chechens so much, why did you [meaning Russia] fight so hard to keep them in the Russian Federation? Isn't it a lot better to toss Chechnya out of the "federation", close the border, and deport every Chechen from Russian cities?

They were independent in fact before the second war, but attacked Daghestan to establish an Islamic state there and were preparing to attack other territories of Northern Caucasus (they did it later) with the same purpose. So the choice was where to fight them: in Chechnya, Daghestan, Northern Ossetia and Kabarda, Stavropol or Moscow.

[RoyBatty]

Hors, since you Russians hate Chechens so much, why did you [meaning Russia] fight so hard to keep them in the Russian Federation? Isn't it a lot better to toss Chechnya out of the "federation", close the border, and deport every Chechen from Russian cities?

I'll try to explain it as I see it.

There is an undeclared geopolitical war being fought by those who control the USA / Israel / EU and their various hangers on vs the Eurasians (meaning mostly Russia and China) for global dominance.

Since the time of Mackinder and even before these powers have been at each other's throats. The Russia that emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union was severely weakened, both by internal turmoil and sabotage and plunder as well as external sabotage and plunder. Everything went up for grabs and the oligarchs of the Yeltsin era stole enormous amounts of money and resources in cooperation with Western Partners.

So why am I mentioning all this?

Simple. The Cold War never really ended. The Russians were, for a time, duped into believing that it did but the Western Ruling Elites had other ideas and decided to once and for all remove Russia as an obstacle to their dominance of the globe.

In order to achieve those aims multiple parallel strategies were (and are) deployed against Russia.

- Constant negative media reporting, imagery (any Western Corporate media)

- Economic obstruction, often using EU countries (gas pipelines, the WTO, steel exports etc)

- Attempts to acquire key Russian resources, companies (remember the Khodorkovsky / Yukos saga)

- Political attacks, hostility

- Colour Revolutions in ex Soviet States (CIA / NED / USAID / George Soros operations mostly)

- Attacks against Russian Culture and influence by encouraging vicious brands of nationalism in a number of ex-Soviet States (Ukraine is a good example of this)

- Encouragement of territorial disputes in order to sour Russian relations with ex-SU neighbours (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine)

- Encouragement of economic disputes in order to sour Russian relations with ex-SU neighbours (Ukraine in particular via Yuschenko and his US State Dept wife)

- NATO bases on Russia's borders, NATO encirclement of Russia (in contravention of original agreements and assurances)

- NATO's bombardment of Russia's traditional ally, Serbia


So where does Chechnya fit into all this?

Chechnya is in Southern Russia in the Caucasus Region. In the late 1970's the Carter Administration had already designated the Caspian as an area of US Strategic interest due to the energy supplies contained there. The West's strategy has thus been to try and push Russia out of this region.

Part of that effort included Western political, financial and military support for "Chechen Independence" in the same way that the Westerners support Saakashvili of Georgia's military misadventures. The Chechens became radicalised in the 1990's, received massive financial injections via Saudi Arabia (working as Washington's proxy in the same way that it financed the Afghans via Pakistan during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) and also received an unhealthy dosage of Saudi Wahabism.

In the lost 1990's decade the Chechen warlords thus got their independence and the broken down and disarrayed Russia had to let matters be as they were in no shape to maintain a military campaign. This changed after Putin replaced the drunken incompetent stooge Yeltsin AND the Chechens (probably following Western suggestions) became too ambitious and launched a raid on Dagestan in Southern Russia. It was game on again and this time around the Chechens were crushed. Eventually Ramzan Kadyrov and his clan were put in charge there and they have been running it as their personal fiefdom ever since.


[Note:
My personal opinion (possibly wrong) is that he's beginning to step on too many toes and that he may be "retired" at some point OR become a problem for the Russian authorities.]

The Chechen Wars and the problems in Georgia have the same origins. It is part of a geopolitical strategy to push Russia out of the Caucasus and the Caspian so that Western Big Oil can gain complete control over the region.

The unfortunate truth (from a Russian perspective) is that they can't afford to throw the Chechens out or to do the same with some of the other Central Asians. All these countries form bufferzones between Russia and NATO. The less territory Russia controls the more exposed it will be.

[Lenny]

I'll try to explain it as I see it.

There is an undeclared geopolitical war being fought by those who control the USA / Israel / EU and their various hangers on vs the Eurasians (meaning mostly Russia and China) for global dominance.
That is certainly the way the Russians would have it (maybe omitting China from the picture). IMO, the real narrative here is General Western Decline; it saddens me to say it, but anything Russia or the Western Powers do today is sort of fiddling while the city burns. If racial stability is not achieved, the European powers will surely fall and nothing relating to Chechnya or any other related issue will matter.


Since the time of Mackinder and even before these powers have been at each other's throats.
Well the nonGerman Western powers did side with Russia in two major wars in the past century. Unless you confer to Germany the status of Periphery-power-aiming-to-grab-the-Heartland, until the USA and its satellites took over the reins in 1945. There might be something to that.


The Russia that emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union was severely weakened, both by internal turmoil and sabotage and plunder as well as external sabotage and plunder. Everything went up for grabs and the oligarchs of the Yeltsin era stole enormous amounts of money and resources in cooperation with Western Partners.
Speaking in relative terms, the USSR was in better geopolitical position in 1950 than any nation on Earth except for the USA. Interestingly, Britain spent a much larger share of its national wealth fighting WWII than the USSR did. And the USSR was allowed to gobble up the bulk of the resources of the nations it conquered.


So why am I mentioning all this?

Simple. The Cold War never really ended. The Russians were, for a time, duped into believing that it did but the Western Ruling Elites had other ideas and decided to once and for all remove Russia as an obstacle to their dominance of the globe.
Well, if we want to go down that road we can say that "the cold war" of Russia vs. The West has never ended since it first began in the 1600s or so. Russia's main problem in the past always had to do with being cut off from the world, especially via lack of access to warm-water ports. That issue alone (lust for warm water ports) explains a great deal of its imperialism in the past 400 years.


In order to achieve those aims multiple parallel strategies were (and are) deployed against Russia.

- Constant negative media reporting, imagery (any Western Corporate media)

- Economic obstruction, often using EU countries (gas pipelines, the WTO, steel exports etc)

- Attempts to acquire key Russian resources, companies (remember the Khodorkovsky / Yukos saga)

- Political attacks, hostility

- Colour Revolutions in ex Soviet States (CIA / NED / USAID / George Soros operations mostly)

- Attacks against Russian Culture and influence by encouraging vicious brands of nationalism in a number of ex-Soviet States (Ukraine is a good example of this)
We so soon forget that the Soviet Empire (Both the frankenstein-state of the USSR and its puppets in eastern and central Europe) collapsed precisely because of an upswing in nationalism among all the peoples therein, especially the nonRussian peoples. The economic-downturn of the 1980s was the impetus, but revivalist-nationalism was actually the silver bullet that killed the Monster.

The idea that the fostering of revivialist-nationalism among Poles, DDR-Germans, Czechs, Latvians, Ukrainians, etc. etc., in the mid-late 1980s was all solely a game played by Western powers as an attack on Russia...that is ridiculous. To the extent that the Western powers were involved, it was after the ex-USSR captive nations dove into the Western camp for protection in the 1990s and to a certain extent in this decade.



[B]So where does Chechnya fit into all this?

Chechnya is in Southern Russia in the Caucasus Region.
That depends how you define "Russia". Is 'Kaliningrad' in "western Russia"? Was the Philippines part of the "western USA" from 1900-1945 (or whenever it got independence)?


In the late 1970's the Carter Administration had already designated the Caspian as an area of US Strategic interest due to the energy supplies contained there. The West's strategy has thus been to try and push Russia out of this region.
I agree 100% with this part of your post.


Part of that effort included Western political, financial and military support for "Chechen Independence" in the same way that the Westerners support Saakashvili of Georgia's military misadventures. The Chechens became radicalised in the 1990's, received massive financial injections via Saudi Arabia (working as Washington's proxy in the same way that it financed the Afghans via Pakistan during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) and also received an unhealthy dosage of Saudi Wahabism.

In the lost 1990's decade the Chechen warlords thus got their independence and the broken down and disarrayed Russia had to let matters be as they were in no shape to maintain a military campaign. This changed after Putin replaced the drunken incompetent stooge Yeltsin AND the Chechens (probably following Western suggestions) became too ambitious and launched a raid on Dagestan in Southern Russia.
Again, in what sense is "Dagestan" part of Russia any more than the Raj was part of Britain? Your points are valid, but the idea that every square kilometer of land ruled by Moscow is "Russian" is not. This is the core of the Chechnya issue IMO.


The Chechen Wars and the problems in Georgia have the same origins. It is part of a geopolitical strategy to push Russia out of the Caucasus and the Caspian so that Western Big Oil can gain complete control over the region.

The unfortunate truth (from a Russian perspective) is that they can't afford to throw the Chechens out or to do the same with some of the other Central Asians. All these countries form bufferzones between Russia and NATO. The less territory Russia controls the more exposed it will be.
That last line drifts toward the paranoia of an imperial council; it's the kind of grand delusion of the royal courts in 1914. Russia is the largest country on Earth; losing a tiny little country less than the size of Scotland,--whose people are hated by Russians and who likewise hate Russians-- won't hurt it.

[RoyBatty]

That is certainly the way the Russians would have it (maybe omitting China from the picture). IMO, the real narrative here is General Western Decline; it saddens me to say it, but anything Russia or the Western Powers do today is sort of fiddling while the city burns. If racial stability is not achieved, the European powers will surely fall and nothing relating to Chechnya or any other related issue will matter.


I don't think the Western rulers care one iota about "European Preservation". Russia is of course a multicultural / multi-ethnic country. The West wouldn't have been "declining" if it hadn't been poisoned from within by the NWO who sneaked in via the backdoor into the halls of power. The way things are going Europe (and the USA) will be history (as far as the European character is concerned) within a few decades.




Well the nonGerman Western powers did side with Russia in two major wars in the past century. Unless you confer to Germany the status of Periphery-power-aiming-to-grab-the-Heartland, until the USA and its satellites took over the reins in 1945. There might be something to that.


That was then, times have changed. So have alliances AND the forces in power. I don't believe that "European interests" groups have much say in anything anymore. It's all about "liberal values" and "what is good for Israel" and "globalism".



Speaking in relative terms, the USSR was in better geopolitical position in 1950 than any nation on Earth except for the USA.


Apart from seaports. Having such a large border to defend wasn't ideal but at the time they could cope with the burden.



Interestingly, Britain spent a much larger share of its national wealth fighting WWII than the USSR did. And the USSR was allowed to gobble up the bulk of the resources of the nations it conquered.


Reminds me of the British NHS (National Health Service) and the railways. Spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee success. As far as resource gobbling goes, depending on what and who you read it'll tell you that one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was because of the burden of economically supporting the Warsaw Pact and other allies.



Well, if we want to go down that road we can say that "the cold war" of Russia vs. The West has never ended since it first began in the 1600s or so.


It wasn't vs "The West" at the time. "The West" (as an allied block) is a post-WW2 creation. But sure, as things go in Europe and further East different factions were always plotting against one another.



Russia's main problem in the past always had to do with being cut off from the world, especially via lack of access to warm-water ports. That issue alone (lust for warm water ports) explains a great deal of its imperialism in the past 400 years.


That'll be one reason. Imperialism was the name of the European game in those days.



We so soon forget that the Soviet Empire (Both the frankenstein-state of the USSR [barely 50% ethnic-Russian in 1989] and its puppets in eastern and central Europe) collapsed precisely because of an upswing in nationalism among all the peoples therein, especially the nonRussian peoples. The economic-downturn of the 1980s was the impetus, but revivalist-nationalism was actually the silver bullet that killed the Monster.


I'm not convinced it was a Nationalist Revival. I subscribe more to the theory that the economic system, inefficiencies and military spending just couldn't be sustained.

Again, depending on who / what you read, there are interesting analysis on this very topic which drew parallels between declining USSR oil production (at the time) and worsening economic conditions which eventually led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. In other words, the USSR's fate was linked to energy production. I think there could be some truth to that.



The idea that the fostering of revivialist-nationalism among Poles, DDR-Germans, Czechs, Latvians, Ukrainians, etc. etc., in the mid-late 1980s was all solely a game played by Western powers as an attack on Russia...that is ridiculous. To the extent that the Western powers were involved, it was after the ex-USSR captive nations dove into the Western camp for protection in the 1990s and to a certain extent in this decade.


Just as surely as the USSR would have promoted "socialist causes" in the West, the West would have been busy at work stoking nationalism in the East. The West had an easier job in the sense that they already had an enthusiastic and poor captive audience with whom to play divide and rule while the relatively affluent public in the West were always going to be less keen on exchanging their current lifestyles for a socialist paradise.



That depends how you define "Russia". Is 'Kaliningrad' in "western Russia"? Was the Philippines part of the "western USA" from 1900-1945 (or whenever it got independence)?


I define Russia as being all territories marked as "Russia / Russian" on a reasonably accurate and up-to-date map.



Again, in what sense is "Dagestan" part of Russia any more than the Raj was part of Britain? Your points are valid, but the idea that every square kilometer of land ruled by Moscow is "Russian" is not. This is the core of the Chechnya issue IMO.


It's a part of the Russian Federation so it is part of Russia. Hawaii or an Indian Reserve in New Mexico doesn't cease to be part of the USA because another nation (Hawaiians / Indians) live there.



That last line drifts toward the paranoia of an imperial council; it's the kind of grand delusion of the royal courts in 1914. Russia is the largest country on Earth; losing a tiny little country less than the size of Scotland,--whose people are hated by Russians and who likewise hate Russians-- won't hurt it.

Losing a few sq miles of territory isn't the issue. (You're right it wouldn't make a difference to Russia in terms of territorial wealth).

The problem is of a political and military nature. Every sq mile that Russia doesn't control will soon be occupied by NATO, the mujaheddeen or equivalent, the Chinese, the Turks and whoever else one wants to throw into the mix. It's a tough neighbourhood.

It is no coincidense that the best political friends of the Chechens are all American Jews from the cream of the US's Political and Security Communities. It is no coincidence that numerous Chechen terrorists are given sanctuary in NATO countries. Can you imagine the outcry if Russia set Bin Laden up in Russia?

The Chechens were radicalised by countries like Saudi Arabia who acted as proxies for the USA and UK governments. The same process is happening now with Georgia (Orthodox Christian country) who are armed and encouraged into military adventures against Russia. The same thing is underway in the Ukraine which has a massive Russian population and where the majority of people DON'T want to join NATO.

The "West's" policies towards Russia are confrontational. They are engaged in a program of encirclement, military buildups, the poisoning of Russian relations with neighbours by encouraging ethnic disputes (classic divide and rule), expansion into Central Asia (the Afghanistan War is really about CA Energy supplies) and so forth.

The sad thing is that none of this really benefits the average Westerner or Russian or Eastern European. We're all victims of the NWO / Zionists / Evangelical nutcases, European Royal Families, the mega rich, corporations, bankers, industrialists etc who have banded together in order to gain control over the whole world.

That's why I believe that this should be opposed. One World Government by the elites and a globalised world (OK it already is to a large extent) are against the interests of humanity and particularly, our race.

[Murri]

What are Russians doing there in the first place?

No foreigner has the right to criticize me how I govern my own house.

[Sarmatian]

Just LOL. Why do you revive 6 years old thread?