Posted on 09/21/2004 8:24:29 PM PDT by GIJoel
You forgot to add Gypsies, Serbians, Orthodox Christians or just a catagory in general: Untermensch.
I didn't read anyone calling you a terrorist defender or an islam apologist. I will and do, along with others who have been following his threads, call joel both. You should not be slighted when nothing has been directed toward you.
Ok. Take a look at post 490 for my eyewitness account of Russia's military effectiveness.
Ok. Take a look at post 490 for my eyewitness account of Russia's military effectiveness.
If you follow the teachings of Mohammad or the Koran you are the enemy of all I believe in. Period.
I'm with you. See you at the front.
Where have we built walls to keep people in, "IF" this nation is so evil then why is the one place upon this earth that everybody wants to come here, especially terrorists?
Where in your hysteria did you find those words in my posts? Your response is not only not on topic of my post but is hysterical in nature. My point was not that we were evil, that is something of a spin that you put on it, my post is that we are powerful and being afraid of the Red Army boogy man is a paranoid conspiratorial idiocy.
Isn't there now a statue of Lenin in Seattle? Scary, very sKerry.
I'll take republican order over democratic mob rule every time.
You forgot to switch on your brain.
bump
IIRC, the Russian contingent in Kosovo was from their "elite" airborne forces.
MEMO TO CIA FROM KGB DEFECTOR, ANATOLY GOLITSYN, 1 FEBRUARY 1995 (Taken from his book, Perestroika Deception, Edward Harle Limited, 1998, ISBN 1-899798-03-X).
Excerpt (footnotes removed):
THE EVENTS IN CHECHNYA EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF RUSSIAN STRATEGY
The conduct of the Chechnyan operation raises a number of questions. For instance: why, given the vast military and secret police experience at their disposal, did the Russians choose to dispatch in to Chechnya in the first place, inexperienced young Soviet army draftees who put up a poor performance in front of Western television cameras? Why were the Russian special forces who, for example, captured General Pal Maleter during the Hungarian upheaval of 1956, too inept to capture any of the Chechen leaders? How did the Chechen Fighters come to be so well armed? Why did the army and Ministry of the Interior troops not take immediate action to surround the city of Grozny and cut off the one route which remained available for the movement of Chechen Fighters and supplies in and out of the city centre?
Why, with their huge preponderance of firepower, did it take the Russians so long to capture the Presidential Palace, the symbolic centre of Chechen resistance? Why, before the Palace fell, were its Chechen defenders, according to their own accounts, allowed to leave, taking their Russian prisoners with them, so that they were free to continue the struggle elsewhere? Why was the bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny conducted with what Chancellor Kohl described as ‘senseless madness’? And why, as the Chechen fighters ‘took to the hills’, was a local guerrilla leader willing to receive a Western journalist in his own home in a mountain village without disguise, providing his full name and a history of his family? [The New York Times, 20 January 1995].
I am skeptical about much of the Western press and television coverage of Chechnya. In the first place, coverage was restricted by various factors. For example, Western access to Russian troops engaged in the operation was severely limited according to John Dancey, the NBC News correspondent in Moscow, speaking on the Donahue-Pozner Program on 12 January 1995. The bombardment itself was a powerful disincentive to intrusive journalism, and reporters obviously cannot be blamed for their inability to provide a coherent account of the fighting which took place in the centre of Grozny.
The important general point is the Western press and TV representatives reported the events as Westerners observing what they took to be a real conflict in a free society. It is not their fault that they were not briefed concerning the possibilities of provocation along Communist lines. Hence they were not looking for evidence of mock confrontations, faked casualties of planted information. The prominent Western reporters themselves, though courageous, appeared young and lacking in experience as war correspondents.
Nevertheless, some revealing items surfaced in the coverage. For example, the New York Times reported on 15 January that ‘some of the least serious’ of the Chechen fighters ‘would parade before the cameras’ at the Minutka traffic circle. That report prompted questions as to how many serious Chechen fighters were actually involved in action against Russian troops. Another report insisted that ‘ the last Western reporters’ had left the area of the Presidential Palace, where the ‘murderous fighting’ was concentrated and that Chechen fighters were no longer able to move easily to the south of the city in order to brief journalists about what was happening. It seems therefore that there were no Western eyewitnesses of the ‘final battle’ for the Palace, and that much of the evidence on the fighting was derived from Chechen fighters, whose reliability the reporters were no position to assess.
Two Western reporters were killed during these events. Though these deaths were reported as accidental, the fact is that the Russians would have no compunction about eliminating Western journalists if they thought they might be liable to expose their provocation. It was no coincidence that 40 Russian rockets were targeted at, and hit, Minutka Circle—which up to that moment had been favoured for meetings between journalists and fighters. Almost certainly, Russian officers who told journalists that they had arrived in Grozny without maps were briefed to tell this tall story. A Russian General who was shown on television going through photographs taken by reporters, said the pictures they had taken were useful because they helped him to assess what was going on in Grozny. In all likelihood, he was checking to make sure that the photographs taken by the reporters conveyed the images the Russian wanted conveyed for international public consumption.
The spectacular and continuous bombardment of buildings in the centre of Grozny, many of them probably empty, struck me as deliberately designed to monopolise television cameras, replicating in many ways the ‘Reichstag Fire’ bombardment of the ‘White House’ in Moscow in October 1993.
Inevitably, the detonation of so much high explosive was accompanied by casualties. But the actual number of casualties was probably limited by the departure of many inhabitants of the centre of Grozny before the bombardment started in earnest. As early as 7 January 1995, the Red Cross reported that 350,000 people had fled from the fighting, a figure equivalent to over 80% of the population of Grozny. It would be interesting to know to what extent the authorities encouraged or arranged the evacuation of central Grozny before the bombardment began.
Verification of casualty number is the most difficult problem. According to Dudayev, cited in The New York Times of 12 January, 18,000 Chechens had already died, a figure which the reporter said ‘seems exaggerated’. Casualty figures for the Russian army quoted in The New York Times of 17 January varied from 400 to 800 killed. Again there is no knowing whether these figures were exaggerated or minimized. The Russian authorities are reported to have delayed the admission of European observers interested in verifying numbers. Even if they were eventually to arrive on the scene, such observers would be unlikely to be able to check the numbers allegedly buried in mass graves. Total casualties will probably never be known with any certainty. From the Kremlin strategists’ point of view, casualties are inevitable during this kind of operation and a necessary price to pay of the attainment of defined strategic objectives.
THE KREMLIN’S OBJECTIVES AND THE CHECHNYA CRISIS
The timing of the Chechnyan crisis is an essential key to understanding the strategic objectives which underlie it. The crisis followed closely on the Republican Congressional victory, with its possible consequence of a reversal in the US military rundown. Contrived and televised Russian military bungling during the Chechnyan campaign has sent a strong message to the West that Russian military leaders are divided amongst themselves and that there is widespread incompetence and low morale in the army—factors which demonstrate that it can be discounted as a serious military adversary for the foreseeable future.
This message is intended to influence US Congressional debate on the subject of Russia’s military potential and the size of US forces required to maintain a balance with it. The message can also be used as a pretext for deepening the partnership between the US and Russian armed forces by seeking American advice and help in ‘reforming’, reorganizing and retraining the Russian army in order to enable it to serve as a ‘democratic’ system.
The events in Chechnya have enabled the Russians to play especially on European fears of destabilization in Russia and the development there of an internal ‘Bosnian situation’. These fears have injected a further boost to the European desire for partnership with the ‘democratic forces’ in Russia in developing democratic solutions to Russian problems. European hopes of promoting real democracy in Russian will of course prove illusory. The Russians will use the partnership to ease their entry into European institutions as a rightful member of the ‘European house’, a house which over the longer term they intend to dominate.
Given continuing Russian influence and leverage in Eastern Europe, East European and eventually Russian involvement in NATO are in the long term Russian strategic interest in accordance with Sun Tzu’s principle of ‘entering the enemy’s camp unopposed’. Though for different reasons, I share the view expressed by a writer in The New York Times of 11 January 1995 that East European membership would mean the ruin of NATO. The ruin of NATO is a long-term Russian objective, towards the achievement of which much progress has already been made. The televised spectacle of Russian barbarity in Chechnya has aroused apprehension in neighboring states of comparable Russian military operations against themselves, thereby strengthening the argument that former members of the Warsaw Pact should be admitted to membership of NATO. Yeltsin’s firmly expressed opposition to their membership and his Foreign Minister’s ambivalence (see, for instance, The New York Times of 20 January 1995) can be read as possible preludes to dramatic ‘change’ in Russian policy, perhaps under a new government.
Furthermore, the reassertion of Kremlin control over Chechnya through massive military intervention (which, despite the calculated impression of bungling, achieved its objective, thereby itself revealing the contrived nature of the televised ‘bungling’), the spectacular, televised destruction of buildings in Gozny and the publicity surrounding the level of casualties, have sent the strongest possible signals to genuine would-be Muslim and non-Muslim secessionists in Chechnya and other Republics that secessionism is a very dangerous game. The strategists may well have chosen Chechnya for their demonstration of force specifically because real secessionism can be more easily contained in that territory than in others.
To ALL:
If you would like more info. on how the Russians (read: Soviets) STILL use terrorism to further their unrelenting drive towards world government, check out "Terrorists in Muslim Disguise" and "We Are The Next Target" threads below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1220747/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1220737/posts
Look, Russia's population is almost TWO times smaller than US and THREE times smaller than EU. Where is this large "horde" to come from?
"No I am pointing out the fact of the Red Army boogyman is lunacy. NATO has the Red Army surrounded and these people are afraid of the Red Army invading the US? That is pure lunacy. What will they do, beam themselves into DC?"
Funny little thing you keep leaving out is "history". "NATO has the Red Army surrounded", is not exactly explaining anything.
On this day in this time NATO cannot agree upon much let along the "RED Army". Now if we were under the Clintons and their stated policy you might have a point.
Lunacy is ignoring the whole history and there are plenty that fit that profile.
Putin has not been WITH US, the day he sent horses to that "mental" Il of N. Korea, for his birthday, showed me his hand. In case you have not been paying attention N. Korea wants to nuke US.
There is such a special history of N.Korea and Stalin, and everybody keeps pointing to China as being their string puller, however, it was Stalin who owned them lock stock and barrel, that made a pact with the Chinese in 1950, that sent 120,000 troops down into N.Korea, while Stalin gave secret air support.
NOW who were the Chinese and Stalin's planes shooting at????
Has that pact of 1950 been renounced??? I have not heard anything that tells me that Russia of today and China of today have torn up that pact.
Oh I know not anything to do with today, right, after alll Clintons and Carter and Richardson adopted N.KOrea offf Boris' hands and Boris got banks loads of money.
Now what path Putin takes from this point forward will be watched but his record of standing with the US has much lacking in the balance.
Problem is, the Kosovo contingent was from the airborne forces--the best-trained troops in the Russian Army (the airborne divisions all have the "Guards" honorific).
You are barking at the wrong tree. If you are afraid of the world government look into the push for international interventions into national affairs. It was not Serbia or Russia who strives for the world government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.