Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Terrorism in Moscow

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Chechens take hostages

Check the results of the quickvote...

What do you think?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what do you think?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you ever think.

    You really are a joke, quite funny at times mind you, but there you go :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Terrorism in Moscow
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    Check the results of the quickvote...

    What do you think?

    OO-RAH!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thank goodness this has all ended without too many casualties.

    Solid news so far.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't surprised by the quick vote results, very reflective of the American mind that actually listens to the shit CNN comes out with half the time.

    And Greenhat, don't read too much into the results will you
    "This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Remember, a similar poll on Sky a few weeks ago voted G.W. Bush a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. :D

    As for what I think, I think the Russians did the right thing. Those people have a proven record of hostage killing and atrocities. And governments should not bow to extortion or terrorist acts. It is reported that the terrorists had started to execute hostages. So it was time to act.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin

    As for what I think, I think the Russians did the right thing. Those people have a proven record of hostage killing and atrocities. And governments should not bow to extortion or terrorist acts. It is reported that the terrorists had started to execute hostages. So it was time to act.

    What do you know. We agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    What do you know. We agree.

    No sign of flying pigs round here so far. :D;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diesel ~ ~ 88888888

    Not too long but on point...do read...this is all too true!

    GLOBAL JIHAD
    Chechens: Islam justifies
    killing prisoners
    Website presents case as gunmen slay hostages in Moscow

    Posted: October 25, 2002
    8:13 p.m. Eastern



    © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

    Islamic teaching allows the killing of prisoners if it benefits Muslims, according to articles on a pro-Chechen Islamist website that cites Muslim sources, including the Quran.

    Chechen gunmen holding about 600 hostages in a Moscow theater have set a dawn deadline to begin killing the rest of their captives if Russia does not agree to pull its army out of Chechnya.

    The anti-Russian website probably is run by Chechens, said the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which translated the articles.

    An article titled "A Guide to the Perplexed about the Permissibility of Killing Prisoners" says Islamic scholars present five approaches drawn from various interpretations of the Quran:

    A polytheist prisoner must be killed. No amnesty may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed.

    All infidel polytheists and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.

    Amnesty and ransom are the only two ways to deal with (surviving) prisoners.

    Amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number of prisoners.

    The Imam, or someone acting on his behalf, can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner.
    The author indicates the last option as his preference, explaining that Islam's prophet, Muhammad, had dealt with prisoners in different ways to maximize the benefits to Muslims. He gives examples of methods with which Muhammad had chosen to kill, grant amnesty and ransom prisoners.

    The article was a reaction, the author said, to criticism by Muslims that had "torn his heart," concerning the execution of nine Russian prisoners after the government had refused to surrender "one of Russia's biggest criminals and crooks."

    According to the author, the Chechens have executed prisoners not because of their heart's desire, but because they have seen a benefit for the Muslims in such an act.

    Some critics have argued, the author notes, that no one should be punished for the sins of others. He insists, however, that Allah permits the killing of a prisoner because he is a prisoner and all the more so if one's killing for the sins of others serves an important Islamic interest, as well as a deterrent to the enemy.

    An article titled "Are Hostages Prisoners?" explains the concept of hostages in its modern application to local kidnapped individuals and foreigners who are held as a means of pressure to achieve specific goals.

    According to the author, he who was kidnapped in accordance with Islamic law should be considered a hostage, and hence a prisoner, who should be treated in the manner that would bring benefits to Muslims.

    Another article, "Prisoners in Islam," indicates there are five methods that Islam proposes for dealing with prisoners: release without ransom, ransom, killing, enslavement or subjugation to the authority of the Islamic state.

    The method changes according to circumstances, but it has to be one that brings the greatest benefits to Muslims, the article says. For example, if among the prisoners there is someone who is strong and is likely to tantalize the Muslims and his staying alive might cause harm, his killing will be the preferred method.

    If there is someone who is weak but wealthy, ransoming him is the best method, according to the article. If there is someone who holds a favorable view of Muslims and could help them and their prisoners, amnesty is the best method. If there are those who could render a service, such as women and children, enslavement is considered best.

    Diesel

    88888888

    (wonder who I'll pop up as today?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Diesel ~ ~ 88888888
    Originally posted by Turtle/Diesel
    (wonder who I'll pop up as today?)

    I think that you are permanently logged in as Turtle.
    No real need to wonder...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The following article was taken from the Los Angeles Times and details some of the atrocities perpetrated by Russian forces against the Chechen peoples.

    "I remember a Chechen female sniper. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it."

    "The main thing is to have them die slowly. You don't want them to die fast, because a fast death is an easy death."

    "The summary executions don't just take place against suspected fighters. One 33-year-old army officer recounted how he drowned a family of five--four women and a middle-aged man--in their own well."

    "You should not believe people who say Chechens are not being exterminated. In this Chechen war, it's done by everyone who can do it," he said. "There are situations when it's not possible. But when an opportunity presents itself, few people miss it."

    "I would kill all the men I met during mopping-up operations. I didn't feel sorry for them one bit."

    "It's much easier to kill them all. It takes less time for them to die than to grow."

    "So there will be one Chechen less on the planet, so what? Who will cry for him?"

    WAR HAS NO RULES FOR RUSSIAN FORCES BATTLING CHECHEN REBELS

    Troops admit committing atrocities against guerrillas and civilians. It's part of the military culture of impunity, they say. But many now have troubled consciences.

    By MAURA REYNOLDS
    Times Staff Writer

    Los Angeles Times, Sunday, 17 Sept, MOSCOW:

    They call it bespredel--literally, "no limits." It means acting outside the rules, violently and with impunity. It translates as "excesses" or "atrocities." It's the term Russian soldiers use to describe their actions in Chechnya.

    "Without bespredel, we'll get nowhere in Chechnya," a 21-year-old conscript explained. "We have to be cruel to them. Otherwise, we'll achieve nothing."

    Since Russia launched a new war against separatist rebels in its republic of Chechnya a year ago, Russian and Western human rights organizations have collected thousands of pages of testimony from victims about human rights abuses committed by Russian servicemen against Chechen civilians and suspected rebel fighters.

    To hear the other side of the story, a Times reporter traveled to more than half a dozen regions around Russia and interviewed more than two dozen Russian servicemen returning from the war front.

    What they recounted largely matches the picture painted in the human rights reports: The men freely acknowledge that acts considered war crimes under international law not only take place but are also commonplace.

    In fact, most admitted committing such acts themselves--everything from looting to summary executions to torture.

    "There was bespredel all the time," one 35-year-old soldier said. "You can't let it get to you."

    The servicemen say atrocities aren't directly ordered from above; instead, they result from a Russian military culture that glorifies ardor in battle, portrays the enemy as inhuman and has no effective system of accountability.

    "Your army is based on professionalism," said a 27-year-old paratrooper who served alongside U.S. troops as a peacekeeper in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Our army is based on fervor.".......<snip>......

    * * *

    "The main thing is to have them die slowly. You don't want them to die fast, because a fast death is an easy death."
    --Andrei

    Andrei's pale eyes glow against his tanned skin. He's been home only 10 days. He opens and closes kitchen cabinets, searching confusedly for sugar for his tea. "I still haven't gotten used to domestic life," he apologizes. He has just turned 21.

    During basic training, he recalls, Red Cross workers came to his base to teach about human rights and the rules of war.

    "They tried to teach us all kinds of nonsense, like that you should treat civilians 'politely,' " he says. "If you behave 'politely' during wartime, I promise you, nothing good will come of it. I don't know about other wars, but in Chechnya, if they don't understand what you say, you have to beat it into them. You need the civilians to fear you. There's no other way."

    Andrei says the lesson that stuck was the one his commander taught him: how to kill.

    "We caught one guy--he had a fold-up [radio] antenna. He gave us a name, but when we beat him he gave us a different name. We found maps in his pockets, and hashish. He tried to tell us he was looking for food for his mother.......<snip>.......

    "Once they have a bruise, they're already as good as dead," Andrei says. "They know they won't make it to the procurator's office. You can see it in their eyes. They never tell us anything, but then again, we never ask. We do it out of spite, because if they can torture our soldiers, why shouldn't we torture them?"

    "The easiest way is to heat your bayonet over charcoal, and when it's red-hot, to put it on their bodies, or stab them slowly. You need to make sure they feel as much pain as possible. The main thing is to have them die slowly. You don't want them to die fast, because a fast death is an easy death. They should get the full treatment. They should get what they deserve. On one hand it looks like an atrocity, but on the other hand, it's easy to get used to.
    "I killed about nine people this way. I remember all of them", says Andrei.....<snip>.......

    ******

    One 33-year-old army officer recounted how he drowned a family of five--four women and a middle- aged man--in their own well.

    "You should not believe people who say Chechens are not being exterminated. In this Chechen war, it's done by everyone who can do it," he said. "There are situations when it's not possible. But when an opportunity presents itself, few people miss it........<snip>......

    * * *

    "I would kill all the men I met during mopping-up
    operations. I didn't feel sorry for them one bit."
    --Boris

    Boris' body was both built and broken by years of boxing. His face, hands and torso have the strength and subtlety of cinder blocks. Since he returned from the war zone, he has had trouble sleeping at night.

    "Sometimes I fear I will not be able to control myself, especially after a couple of drinks," the thirtysomething police commando says. "I wake up in a cold sweat, all enraged, and all I can see is dead bodies, blood and screams. At that moment, I'm ready to go as far as it takes. I think if I were given weapons and grenades, I would head out and start 'mopping up' my own hometown." He says he can no longer remember all the people he killed.

    "I killed a lot. I wouldn't touch women or children, as long as they didn't fire at me. But I would kill all the men I met during mopping-up operations. I didn't feel sorry for them one bit. They deserved it," he says. "I wouldn't even listen to the pleas or see the tears of their women when they asked me to spare their men. I simply took them aside and killed them."

    When he came home from Chechnya, he resigned from his unit. He says he's happy to be in a regular job. And he's trying to forget the war. But there are some things he can't forget.

    "I remember a Chechen female sniper. She didn't have any chance of making it to the authorities. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it. After this, a lot of the boys calmed down. Justice was done, and that was the most important thing for them.

    "We would also throw fighters off the helicopters before landing. The trick was to pick the right altitude. We didn't want them to die right away. We wanted them to suffer before they died. Maybe it's cruel, but in a war, that's almost the only way to dull the fear and sorrow of losing your friends."

    * * *

    KILLING FOR REVENGE

    Notions of provocation and revenge are central to the servicemen's mind-set. In Russian culture, a man not only has the right but is also honor-bound to respond to a "provocation." When a Russian serviceman is killed or mistreated by the enemy, his comrades must take revenge.
    Nearly all of the servicemen who recounted incidents of bespredel--a slang term that originated in Russia's prisons--described them as revenge attacks for the deaths of their comrades.

    A major reason is the blood-curdling acts of the Chechen fighters themselves--while enjoying de facto independence for three years, many ran brutal kidnapping gangs that abducted Russian hostages, some of whom were tortured and killed. Russian TV reports have repeatedly broadcast gory footage of atrocities allegedly committed by the Chechens, including mutilations and beheadings......<snip>.....

    Valery is a personnel officer, what in Soviet times would have been called a commissar. He's a lieutenant colonel responsible for morale and discipline. He shouldn't talk to reporters.....<snip>......

    "In this war, the attitude toward the Chechens is much harsher. All of us are sick and tired of waging a war without results," he says. "How long can you keep making a fuss over their national pride and traditions? The military has realized that Chechens cannot be re-educated. Fighting against Russians is in their blood. They have robbed, killed and stolen our cattle for all their lives. They simply don't know how to do anything else. . . .

    "We shouldn't have given them time to prepare for the war," he continues. "We should have slaughtered all Chechens over 5 years old and sent all the children that could still be re-educated to reservations with barbed wire and guards at the corners. . .But where would you find teachers willing to sacrifice their lives to re-educate these wolf cubs? There are no such people. Therefore, it's much easier to kill them all. It takes less time for them to die than to grow."
    Much more here.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, Russian soldiers are claimed to have committed warcrimes. Put them on trial. That does not justify acts of terrorism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My oh my. What arrogance!!
    The U.S is trying to ensure that US nationals are exempt from ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is doing this by pressing states around the world to enter into impunity agreements not to surrender US nationals to the ICC. In many cases the US government is threatening to withdraw military assistance from countries that will not agree.
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/icc/

    As one of your fellow Americans once said, "You cannot be serious!". :eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This lark of killing people to "liberate" them seems to be quite popular these days.

    You go in, kill innocent civilians and then say:
    OOOH, aren't those terrorists evil!

    I think the Americans invented it!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally quoted by osmotic
    The U.S is trying to ensure that US nationals are exempt from ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is doing this by pressing states around the world to enter into impunity agreements not to surrender US nationals to the ICC. In many cases the US government is threatening to withdraw military assistance from countries that will not agree.

    However, the Americans are straitjacketed by their Constitution, which clearly makes the Supreme Court the highest legal authority in their land. In order for the USA to sign up to the ICC it would first need to amend the Constitution, a process that has more inertia than a fully laden supertanker. That doesn't mean that the Americans shouldn't sign up, just that they need to overcome considerable difficulties before they can even get to the point of being able to sign up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However, the Americans are straitjacketed by their Constitution,

    Tough shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie


    However, the Americans are straitjacketed by their Constitution, which clearly makes the Supreme Court the highest legal authority in their land. In order for the USA to sign up to the ICC it would first need to amend the Constitution, a process that has more inertia than a fully laden supertanker. That doesn't mean that the Americans shouldn't sign up, just that they need to overcome considerable difficulties before they can even get to the point of being able to sign up.

    Problem is that America thinks it's the highest legal authority in the world. That's gonna make it pretty hard to convince people that they need to be accountable to the rest of the world, isn't it?

    In the meantime it gets to attack anyone it isn't keen on, and nobody has any comeback.

    How convenient is that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by opopanax


    Problem is that America thinks it's the highest legal authority in the world.

    No. Americans think that the US Supreme Court is the highest legal authority for them. And they are in fact correct as the US Constitution stands. Nor is the US Constitution a document that is easily amended (intentionally designed that way).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    No. Americans think that the US Supreme Court is the highest legal authority for them. And they are in fact correct as the US Constitution stands. Nor is the US Constitution a document that is easily amended (intentionally designed that way).

    Why then does America think it can make pre-emptive strikes without the backing of the UN?

    Why does America refuse to sign international treaties and conventions? Think Kyoto and think United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child.

    It certainly seems that there is a case for arguing that they seem to think they are different to the rest of us, doesn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by opopanax


    Originally posted by Greenhat

    No. Americans think that the US Supreme Court is the highest legal authority for them. And they are in fact correct as the US Constitution stands. Nor is the US Constitution a document that is easily amended (intentionally designed that way).

    Why then does America think it can make pre-emptive strikes without the backing of the UN?

    Don't see how your statement is a rebuttal of Greenhat's. He stated a simple fact: as it stands at the moment, the highest legal authority to which an American citizen may answer is the Supreme Court. To place any body, even an international one, in higher standing would require an amendment to the constitution. Those come at an average rate of one a decade, or half that if you take away the first ten. Beginning to see why there are great logistical difficulties to be overcome regardless of the moral case?
    Why does America refuse to sign international treaties and conventions? Think Kyoto and think United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child.

    It certainly seems that there is a case for arguing that they seem to think they are different to the rest of us, doesn't it?

    Yes, in my opinion America does think it is deserving of special treatment, that it is "different." Well, for better or worse, the fact is that America is "different," since the USA has the huge force (political, military and economic) required to back up any decision it makes, no matter how misguided.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely there is a distinction between incidents happening in home soil or abroad? The US Supreme Court might be the highest authority within US territory, but for alleged crimes committed abroad it should have no authority over other bodies.

    This is about being able to bring individuals who have committed crimes to justice. If those individuals are accused of committing a crime outside their homeland, then it should either be the local justice system or the new proposed ICC that should judge them. The US Supreme Court (or any other country's justice court) has just about fuck all authority to interfere with a trial abroad, regardless of whether the individuals are civilians, soldiers, terrorists or others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Silly me!

    And there I was thinking that the great unmoveable American Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been suspended in the wake of 911!

    Now that didn't seem so hard to do, did it? Didn't even take 10 minutes! Decades my bottom!

    :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by opopanax
    Silly me!

    And there I was thinking that the great unmoveable American Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been suspended in the wake of 911!

    Now that didn't seem so hard to do, did it? Didn't even take 10 minutes! Decades my bottom!

    :confused:

    Guess you should pay more attention, since it wasn't suspended, isn't suspended, and can't be suspended.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From Russia With Love ~~ What Happened!

    After the strm, we can finally alow it to be known that chechens didn't treat their hostages as nice as we had to present it in the first day. Men and women were regularly beaten by Movsad barayev and others for even smallest mistakes, such as too frequent visits to the restroom - an orchestra pit.

    Then, beatings became too weak of excitement, and they started to shot hostages right there. Witnesses say that they have shoot some men by putting the ir guns right to their bodies, and clearly exhibiting joy. Some young man said it is not brave, and he was killed by the handgun shot to the head right there. Then they started to kill women.

    At this moment our operatives already were in the theater, but have only observed the situation. It was them who signalled that the killing has begun. So, we started the storm and released the gas trough the sprinklers of fire control systems. Our troops didn't wear any gas mask as they have received shots of anti-agent.


    Actually it wasn't gas, but aerosol. Chechens were trying to block the ventilation rooms, but they gave no attention to the sprinklers right over their heads. Aerosol had cought them where they stood at the moment. This agent acts on the first breath, so many have never realised what had happened, notably chechen women, who controlled the explosives on themselves, and 2 ton pile on the floor. Later, during the storm, we have shot them one by one right where they were, on the floor, in cheairs. We didn't want to wake them up and give them benefits of our court system and because we don't have a death penalty anymore. We give each of them one control shot in the head, and forget about them. You can see them on the images. Besides, we already knew they are marturs, so we didn't want to be more cruel than that and dispatched them in their dreams.


    By the time we finished them in the hall, others were still fighting on the outside perimeter of the theater. One of our teams have imitated the attack by closing up on the front doors, where they could see us, and blowing up one of the walls. Martyrs started to panic without command of their braindead commander - Barayev, and opened up with uncontrolled fire. Seing their own fallen down without being shot, some have understood that there is some kind of agent in the air, and stupidly tried to protect themselves with dirty rugs that they have wet and tie up around their faces. This didn't worked against this agent.

    Then our troops that have finished in the hall, started to come out outwards, and pressed terrorists from the back. In few minutes, they all were shot. All in all, we have killed 50 terrorists. 32 men and 18 women.

    Those of chechen terrorists that were isolated, turned out to be the luckiest of all. Without relying on ebiquituos command of Movsad Barayev, they have managed to live few minutes longer.

    Some terrorists were blocked in maintenance rooms. That was the job of SOBR and FSB troops. We didn't want to risk there. We simply kept plinking single shots and kept trewing grenades, that's all it took. Two martyrs in the left wing, suddenly decided not to die for Allah or Chechnya, and trew up a white clothes. So, we took them to custody. One more martyr was trying to simply run away from his glory but tragically tripped over his own rifle sling and was captured.

    Unfortunately, as we have expected, our use of paralytic agent was not without tragic consequences. Some hostages have died on the spot or in hospitals. We estimate as of now we have around 90 hostages killed by terrorists and by the chemicals. Out of 700? I think we are fine. No one was shot by mistake. It is still too early for me to give you any firm data, but I am sure we will have much more to say as things come to the order...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    Guess you should pay more attention, since it wasn't suspended, isn't suspended, and can't be suspended.

    So in your opinion, no actions of either Bush or Ashcroft are unconstitutional, and neither do they violate the Bill of Rights?

    :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by opopanax


    So in your opinion, no actions of either Bush or Ashcroft are unconstitutional, and neither do they violate the Bill of Rights?

    :)

    There is a difference between actions that are unconstitutional and suspending the Constitution. The Supreme Court decides whether something is unconstitutional. Haven't seen where they have been disbanded, have you? As for the Bill of Rights, ever read the Second Amendment? In my opinion, actions of every administration since FDR have violated the Bill of Rights.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat

    As for the Bill of Rights, ever read the Second Amendment? In my opinion, actions of every administration since FDR have violated the Bill of Rights.
    OO-RAH!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Going back to the topic, a massive fuck-up with the chemical of choice though. I guess they needed something that would knock people out very quickly, and this thing was probably just right for the job. Any slower-acting agents would have allowed the terrorist to machine-gun everyone and blow up the theatre. Still, it's been reported that out of the 117 dead hostages only two had been shot- the rest allegedly perished after inhaling the chemical, with many still in serious condition and with doctors who won't be told what type of agent was used.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    ... a massive fuck-up with the chemical of choice though. I guess they needed something that would knock people out very quickly, and this thing was probably just right for the job. Any slower-acting agents would have allowed the terrorist to machine-gun everyone and blow up the theatre...

    No "fuck-up", but the reality of "negotiating" with terrorists.

    As Putin comprehends, you do NOT negotiate, you terminate.

    The consequences of any other action? Would have been at a tremendously higher cost.

    You likely look at how many victim's lives were lost. Those who have been engaged in such activities? Observe how many were saved...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by sopite


    No "fuck-up", but the reality of "negotiating" with terrorists.

    As Putin comprehends, you do NOT negotiate, you terminate.

    The consequences of any other action? Would have been at a tremendously higher cost.

    You likely look at how many victim's lives were lost. Those who have been engaged in such activities? Observe how many were saved...


    Right, you really have no clue do you....they used BX gas, a type of nerve agent, designed to put people to sleep on the battlefield. It's never been used in an enclosed space, for which it wasn't designed.
    The concentrations were so high that it killed off brain cells causing people to collapse and fall into comas.
    119 hostages have died so far, only 2 were the result of the terrorists. Another 45 are in a critical condition.

    This is in comparison to the 50 terrorists who died

    Yes, the use of force was necessary, however they couldn't have chosen a more dangerous form of gas for the given situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.