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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't know how much is true, but speculation is already mounting that the Russians had used an agent that could be classified as a chemical weapon, and banned under biological/chemical weapons treaties signed by Russia. That would explain the refusal to give the hostages antidote or even tell the doctors what they are battling against here. 45 people are still in intensive care, and the list of deceased is likely to rise.
As if you do?
What alternative? Allow the terrorists to blow up the building, and kill every single hostage, plus, make their planned "political statement"? You think it was a bluff, that no "sane" person would commit an act which would kill themselves along the way?
Exactly who is clueless?
Stay in your classrooms... it is a much safer place for the delsuional to hide.
What gas would you suggest?
2 TONS of explosives. 2 TONS! What do you think that would have done to the casualty figures?
One point our politicians would have surely objected to was the executing of the female terrorists with a bullet to the head while they were unconscious. I can understand their shock, but can also understand the Russians' argument: each woman was booby-trapped with several kilos of plastic explosives, and had any of them regained consciousness they would have blown themselves up and everyone else around them before there was a chance of removing the bombs.
I don't think they would have objected to that at all. That is pretty much standard procedure for all counter-terrorist units. No terrorist survives who poses the slightest risk to hostages. The SAS are the people who set that policy in stone.
Excellent intelligence sources you must have Whowhere, bearing in mind that the Russians haven't even told the doctors what gas they used...
Anyway, I can't fault the Russians. Its easy to second guess them on the dosage of the gas etc, but they managed to free 700 people being held at gunpoint, whilst surrounded by explosives. Yes 115 (at last count) were killed, mainly by the gas. Now consider how many would/could have been killed by a lively terrorist...with a fully automatic gun and a finger on an explosives detonator...price worth paying?
Only two hostages were shot, this being the reason for the assault, and NO spetnaz troops were killed. At the same time all (bar one I believe) terrorist were killed.
Good work Ivan.
NB The SAS claim that anything less than 30% casulaties should be considered a success.
The firefight went on for an hour. If they were really going to detonate any explosives they would have done so in the first few minutes.
MOK, it was in the news earlier today, that some doctors recieved anonymous info on what gas was used.
I'm not saying they made a huge cockup, just saying they could have used a different gas.
Your sources are piss-poor. Do some research beyond what you see on the boob-tube.
Apparently they might have. The US Embassy in Moscow claims that an opiate was used, rather than BZ gas.
Just a supposition still though, the Russian have yet to confirm anything.
Of course, this may be because it is a banned chemical agent...
Easy to second guess. Harder to get the job done with the whole world looking over your shoulder, at the ready to condemn for whatever you do.
Negotiating with terrorists is hardly the job for the touchie/feelie crew. That others are called upon is why the touchie/feelie exist at all...
What the hell are you rambling on about this time?
There was a firefight going on for an hour, accroding to the news, TV, papers and internet.
Thus, some terrorists were conscious and fighting. So, i ask you again, if they were going to set off explosives, WHY didn't they.
Please try and avoid changing the subject, and just answer the question.
Some things really are self-evident, at least to the reality based observers... :rolleyes:
Altho... I kinda have always favored the triple-tap, myself... unless blessed with a 7.62N.
Have to dent the accord on this subject, though, with the luvvie suggestion that Russia needs to address the legitimate aspirations of the Chechens, if only because it would rob the extremists of their authority, and give the peacemakers a look in.
Time the moderates were brought in from the cold.
Remember that the Russians had left Chechnya alone for 5 years until 99 when Chechens attcked Russia.
Gas
Surely they only killed 3 people. I thought it was the Russians who killed over 100.
Had an interesting discussion with a couple of anaesthetists earlier in the week. One has a smug look today as he guessed the base drug correctly.
'Can acts of terrorism ever be morally justified? - and, if not, how can the oppressed of the world secure their rights or earn their freedom?
Witnesses include Tony Benn and Haleh Afshar - who hold passionate but very different views on this particular Moral Maze'
(Rpt: Saturdays 22:15 -23:00)
It was certainly a more obviously topical Moral Maze than the usual fair. I was kind of impressed with Afshar in that she didn't change her stance on attempting to understand the motives of terrorists, even when one of the panel asked her if she would try to understand the motives of Timothy McVeigh or the Soho bomber. She could have just said that they didn't qualify as the kind of terrorists who have even a semblance of a cogent rationale to understand in the first place, but she stuck to her guns and probably dodged an ambush.
None too subtle, these Russians...