Lebell

No need to try again.

Some things are wrong regardless, so I'll take exception to your implication that if you are losing badly enough, it's ok to kill children.

Conversation over.

Good day.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

OpieCunningham

I guess you have no other options and therefore believe that it is acceptable that all Chechens should live under a Stalinist dictatorship or die.

I don't expect most American's would agree that that is what they would do if they were placed in the same situation.

Mephisto2

I think it's fair to state a personal and emotional opinion on someone who takes children hostage, refuse to allow them food and water and threaten to execute them.

Also, please read my post again.

I said "these people". I did not say Chechens. I did not say Russians.

I think child rapists are scum also. Many of them are American. Does that mean I think all Americans are scum?

You are making a fundamental mistake in logic and do yourself and me a disfavour.

If I wanted to fight for my liberty? Well, my country did this not long ago. My grandfather fought in our War of Independence and the subsequent Civil War. Children were not kidnapped and murdered.

Hard call. Personally, whilst I believe some things are worth fighting and even killing for (in military terms), I don't believe in murdering children. I'm sorry you seem to be justifying it.

Well, it's good that you're not leading the Chechen seperatists then, is it? There are many additional options including, but not limited to, the following obvious additions.

4 - political means
5 - guerilla war (excluding terrorism; ie attacks on schools and hospitals)

Demonstrably wrong.

See above.



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Fair point. I was basing my response on the original quote, which didn't include the article.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Stalinist dictatorship? Come on... The Russian Federation is no Western Democracy, but it's certainly not the Soviet Union under Stalin.

I can't speak for Americans, but I certainly would not murder children, innocent theatre goers, hospital patients.

I lived with terrorism for 30 years. There are such things even the likes of the IRA called "legitimate targets". If you must be a terrorist/freedom fighter (different sides to the same coin), you should try not to descend into simple, brutality and inhumanity.

"These people" (being the ones holding the children hostages) unfortunately have.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

As long as we're clear your response was emotional. My question is one of logic, so "these people are scum" does not address the question.
No, I think we already determined that your emotional response is the mistake in logic, by nature.
I have already pointed out how the situation for the Chechens differs greatly from a the Revolutionary War. I'm not certain which country you are referring to - but I expect some or all of the same differences I highlighted would apply.
I don't believe in murdering children either. If I were a Chechen, I would probably be killed by the Russian military. This action would not help any other Chechen and if all Chechens were like me, they would all be killed.

I don't believe in genocide.
4- What political means? No other country has stepped up to do anything other than some exceptionally mild form of appeasement to Human Rights organizations. Political means is the same thing as my Gandhi solution. The rest of the world has never been interested in helping the Chechens.
5- This has been going on for years. It hasn't stopped the Stalinist tactics of the Russians at all.


The point of my question is that it is all well and easy to say "Damn those terrorist bastards!" - but the world is not as simple as that, as much as we might want it to be.

OpieCunningham

It would be appreciated if you read the article that I linked to, which is the focal point of the discussion you are having with me.

Stalinist dictatorship - yes.

powerclown

At this point I would reference The 1967 Six-Day War in Israel. The Israelis routed an enemy who had them surrounded on 3 sides - an ocean on the fourth side - and outnumbered at least 10-1. This is how civllized, intelligent people conduct themselves in warfare.


civ·i·lize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-lz)
tr.v. civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing, civ·i·liz·es
To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.
To educate in matters of culture and refinement; make more polished or sophisticated.

OpieCunningham

10-1 is nothing comparable to 1000-1. Nor did the Israeli's find themselves without practical support from other countries. Nor did the Israeli's refrain from killing civilians.

The Israeli's had a military. The Chechen's never have.

Mephisto2

No we did not. You implied I said the Chechens were scum. I patently and demonstrably did not.

I'm talking about the Irish War for Independence, and you seem to be missing my point. It is possible to fight a war without degenerating into terrorism. It's not that difficult a concept.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that all/any Chechens would "probably" be killed by the Russian military? Or just these terrorists? It's not clear what you're saying.

Exactly what I said. Political means. Work within the system. Vote in a regime that will slowly, peacefully move away from Moscow.

You asked what other options there were. I didn't realise you meant "What other, quick and dirty, no holds barred, anything goes options are there?"

And for the record, the EU has repeatedly criticised the RF for its actions in Chechnya. Without actually going to war with the Russia there's not much else that can be done.

So it hasn't worked in the past 10 years. Therefore you justify the murder of innocent civilians and children and the sick?

I think my position is quite clear. I did not say "Damn those terrorist bastards!". I said (or have implied) "Damn those particular child-kidnapping, terrorist bastards".

And it IS that simple.

As I said earlier, having lived in a country that experienced terrorism for 30 years, having been touched by it directly, I have a good understanding of both sides of any conflict. I can understand everyone's point of view, even Al Queda and Hezbollah and other terrorist/freedom fighting groups around the world.

But some times, some groups cross the line. The Lord's Resistance Army in the Democratic Republic of Congo did it. And these particular Chechen terrorists (if that is what they truly are) did it. They crossed the line and deserve no respect.

Finally, just one observation. There is an underlying implication in your entire argument that the Chechen seperatists are "rightgeous" in their actions. You should know that the majority of Chechen's do NOT support this kind of act. And your use of terms like "Stalinist" (when it is clearly not appropriate) also devalue your argument.

Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

I'm trying to find the method the Chechens could use to fight this war which would not result in their total destruction within days or their total subjugation of living in a Stalinist dictatorship.

They are vastly outnumbered. Vastly outgunned, technologically. And have basically zero international support.
Chechens have three options:

1- Give up and let Moscow tell them how to live (i.e. stop trying to be free).
2- Let Moscow kidnap/torture/murder them
3- Fight to the death ... which would be quick and complete

I would choose option 3. But if all Chechens choose option 3, all Chechens would be killed - this is genocide commited by the Russians.

Should I, as an American, just wait until that comes to pass and then denounce the Russians as evil, or should I look at the entire situation (not just the most recent act of either side) and point out that there is no Good side and there is no Evil side in this war? Both sides are acting equally incorrect and need to stop.

This is what they did. They tried to peacefully move away from Moscow. Moscow responded by attacking them.
That's not what I meant. I mean what else do you think could possibly happen? Everything you have suggested does not apply.
[quote]And for the record, the EU has repeatedly criticised the RF for its actions in Chechnya. Without actually going to war with the Russia there's not much else that can be done.[/quote[
That's exactly my point.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm asking what you (or an American) would do? So far, the suggestions you offered would clearly be 100% ineffectual.
No. It is quite clearly not simple.
You speak those words, but I don't see that as being true. You have offered up no logical recourse which would not result in either their continued suffering or their death.
I disagree with this completely.

I have already stated what I would do if I were in their position. And my actions would be a tacit agreement that life is hopeless. I would not threaten children - but the result would be the destruction of my people.

Is that righteous?

Mephisto2

I did. So you believe a Russian news-site as having the definitive right to describe the current regime? They use the word "Stalin" or "Stalinist" four times in the article. Once in the headline, once in a soundbyte and only twice in an informational sentence.

If you want to really understand what it was like to live in a Stalinist state, I recommend you do some reading. The following four books (all of which I've read in the past year coincidentally) will begin to throw some light on the issue.

Gulag - A History by Anne Applebaum
Stalin - The Court of the Red Czar by Simon Sebag Montefiore
Stasiland by Anna Funder (a book on the corrupt East German regime, another so called Stalinist state)

I also recommend many of the excellent biographies of Stalin, especially Koba the Dread - Laughter and the twenty million by Martin Amis.

Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

I lived in Russia for 3 years. I have spoken with people that lived under Stalin.

I do not see any reason to doubt the veracity of the article I linked to. It may not be an environment that matches the scope of lives affected of the environment that Stalin created, but it is quite clearly the exact same tactics of dictatorship.

If you disagree that Chechens are suffering, you should have said so at the beginning. As you are not living in Chechnya and as I am not living in Chechnya, I will use my experience in Russia during the initial Chechen war and the reports I have read since then. Until you offer some alternate source of information for me to consider, that is simply the way it is going to be.

Tophat665

Y'all have figured out now that I am left leaning for an Amreican. In this situation, though, you negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, lull, and generally stall. Then you storm the place and take your chances.

It has to be this way. At the worst, a schoolful of children, a dozen terrorists, and a half dozen military men die. At the best, a dozen terrorists die. However, if you accede to their demands, it will happen over and over and over again, and many schools full of children, malls full of regular folks, military men, and terrorists will die. Look at what happened in Iraq when the insurgency got the Philipines to move up their pullout of fifty guys by a month. There were hostage situations before, but it seems to have just exploded since then. I would then, as president, personally call each and every surviving family member and humbly apologize. I would then get on the TV and really sell the idea that we sacrificed these lives now so that we would not have to do it over and over and over again in the future.

Now, I have put this callously. Do not believe I would look at it that way if I were the guy who had to give the order. Without details (and the point of the excercise here is not trick solutions), the choice is stark. I would most certainly weep and agonize over it, but it really is a no brainer.

Something that crossed my mind while I was writing this: I cannot think of a way to defeat terroism without being even more barbaric than the terrorists. I wonder what would happen (besides incurring the complete disgust of the civilized world) if we put terrorists on notice that, sure, they go to meet Allah and their 72 virgins, but we will then kill every member of their families, 4 generations in each direction. (This of course would founder when a distaff memebr of the House of Saud blew himself up in a shopping mall....) The point is not so much just mindless savagery, but how do you raise the stakes on someone who is getting ready to give up their life?

Chalk it up to frustration. I'm really concerned though that all we're really doing now is training smarter terrorists.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Mephisto2

Trying to understand is one thing. Defending the current actions of those terrorists in the school in North Ossetia is an entirely different thing.

As I said above, they have more options.

OK.... I understand the logical progression, but I don't see the point. It just doesn't make sense. A is like B. B is like C. Therefore A is like C. Logically correctly, but meaningless in the current argument. It wouldn't happen, so why mention it?

Absolutely. The most cogent thing you've said in this thread (in my opinion and with the greatest respect). I agree 100%

So that therefore justifies abandoning the political process? There's a fundamental moral issue here. I think some things are completely unjustified. Always. The current actions of the hostage takers is an example.

You asked what other options there were. I gave two. I don't have a crystal ball to see into the future and see what will happen. Putin will not be in power forever. Maybe the next President will not care if political parties in Chechnya want to secede from the Federation. You can't say it won't work. So basing your justification for child-kidnapping and the murder of civilians on this is not valid.

Everything I have suggested does not apply? Well, there's not much response to that kind of blatant intransient statement now, is there? LOL


Well, it seems to me that you are justifying their actions. What else would you call your repeated defence of their attack?

You also seem to be repeating the same error again and again. I am not discussing the pros and cons of Chechen seperatism in general. I am denouncing, in the strongest possible terms, the actions of those particular terrorists in North Ossetia today. It's quite simple really.

Freedom fighers? Understandable. Whether I agree with their goal or not is irrelevant.

Child murders? Never, ever, EVER justified. And it does their entire cause a great disservice.

Well, that's your opinion. You can believe you can see into my head if you want, but you obviously cannot.

Yes I have. Repeatedly.

1) Continue a standard guerilla war, with clearly defined "legitimate targets".
2) Resort to the political process.
3) Wait for Putin to retire

Everything seems to be black and white in your book. It's not.

There you have it again. The result of your not threatening children would be the destruction of your people.

Wrong. You are justifying and explaining their actions, as if they were victims and had no free will or choice of actions, once more.

No. But you seem to imply it is.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Where did I EVER say that?

You are either not reading my posts correctly, or deliberately missunderstanding me.

The issue at hand is not Chechen seperatism. The issue is the child hostage-takers in North Ossetia.

Oh, and for the record, the leader of the Chechen seperates, one Aslan Maskhadov, has denied his forces are involved in this attack.

Once more, the whole basis of your argument is shown to be false. These people are not "Chechen freedom fighters". They are criminals. These particular people (before you go off and missunderstand me again).

Your living in Russia has no bearing on this issue. My close friendship with two Russians also has no bearing on the issue.

The issue at hand is your continued "support" for a group of child murderers who even their own freedom fighters are disowning.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

I haven't defended anything. But you have denied that Chechens are suffering from a Stalinist dictatorship. Is that a defense of the Russians?
I'm asking a question. What would you do? I would expect that the answer you give would be an action which you think would solve the problem. I do not have such an answer, so faced with the situation the only thing I could do would be to fight the Russian military. The result would be my death. If that were the action taken by Chechens who do not wish to live under a Stalinist dictatorship, the end result would be the death of all those who do not wish to live under a Stalinist dictatorship.

Clearly that is not a morally correct solution.
I think the current actions of the Russians are completely unjustified. And those actions will continue for as long as the Russians feel like continuing them.

How long should the Chechens wait it out in the Stalinist dictatorship, as you require? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

There is an easy solution which does not involve what the Chechens should or should not do - it requires the Russians to stop. That is the solution. There is no other morally correct solution. If the Russians stop, the terrorists will stop.

You've said it yourself - maybe the next President of Russia will let the Chechens secede.

Let's take it one step further and demand that the Russians let the Chechens secede RIGHT NOW.
If I have defended the Chechens, then you have defended the Russians, who are equally morally bankrupt in this situation.
It's even simpler: if you denounced the Russians with the intended result that they stop their actions, the result of that would be no terrorists taking children hostage.
Hah! That's comedy gold.

OpieCunningham

Ultimately it comes down to this:

- The Russians are morally bankrupt.
- The Chechens are morally bankrupt.

If the Russians stop being morally bankrupt, the Chechens will stop being morally bankrupt.

If the Chechens stop being morally bankrupt and wage a standard guerilla war, the Russians will continue to be morally bankrupt.

Therefore, the Russians hold primary fault in this situation.

Mephisto2

Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

I wish I was joking.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

That is, of course, my point. I have not defended the Chechens.

No worries - I had a nice laugh at it anyway.


Any expression of moral indignation at the Chechens which does not include a stronger expression of moral indignation at the Russians is a flawed expression of moral indignation.

Mephisto2

Actually that's not true.

It was a disaster due to poor planning, poor reconnaissance, poor command.

Check out the entire article at http://www.specwarnet.net/miscinfo/patilla.htm

It's just one of many describing the action.


I would also say that poor planning, and lots of bad luck to be fair, were the major factors to the Mogadishu disaster. I didn't dismiss a 100:1 "kill ratio", but I don't think gunning down teenage thugs with the best weapons the world has to offer is much to crow about.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Once more you have dodge the fundamental issue at hand.

I have repeatedly stated that I was not discussing the pros and cons, rights and wrongs of Chechen seperatism.

I was talking about the particular terrorists in North Ossetia.

The same ones who have been disowned by the Chechen seperatists themselves.

If you can't understand that, and the original purpose of this thread, then move along.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Why?

You have stated repeatedly you see only three options. Politics didn't work. Period. All out war wouldn't work. Period. Third option is last resort. Period.

Sounds black and white to me. In other words, there are no "shades of grey" or sliding scales in your argument.

You're contradicting yourself opie.

I'm tired of this now.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

Being disowned by another group of Chechens is 100% irrelevant to the point I have made, which you clearly refuse to see. Why you refuse to see it is beyond me, but I believe it has something to do with your belief that "there is no excuse for terrorism, period, therefore there is excuse for Stalinist dictatorships".

Which simply doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

When you start making some sense, please come back to the discussion. Thanks.

OpieCunningham

Do you intentionally refuse to read people's posts when you try to have a discussion or is there some other problem you're having?

I know it took you a few posts into this discussion to finally read the article we were discussing, but I assumed you had caught up?

I'm not sure where you went off on some seperate tangent about "why do you defend terrorism?" when I clearly haven't - but it certainly hasn't helped the discussion.

Mephisto2

This is my final post to this thread, which you successfully hijacked. Congratulations! :-)

1) I never said there is no excuse for terrorism, period. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. Check it if you want.

2) I did say that there was no excuse for child murder. Ever. I even referenced other terrorist organisations that systematically do this and I don't support them (or their cause, no matter how laudable).

3) Stop parroting the word Stalinist about just because it was used in a headline somewhere. You yourself admitted, and I quote you directly, "It may not be an environment that matches the scope of lives affected of the environment that Stalin created..." Stalin instituted a state wide, oppresive, insipid and comprehensive prevalent system whereby the whole country began to destroy itself. Children denounced parents. Wives denounced husbands. Parents children. There were show trials. There were purges. There were systematic persecution of Jews and Kulaks. There were industrial level prison and later death camps. This is not happening in Chechnya, and you belittle the crimes of Stalin by so implying. What is happening in Chechnya is criminal, but not Stalinist.


So there you have it.

Blatant and intentional misquoting and misinterpretation of what was said. You see, the funny thing is I understand your position. Russia is perpetrating crimes in Chechnya. But the whole point of my thread was based upon the crimes of a particularly ruthless band of criminals who have murdered and taken children hostage. You tried to turn it into some kind of political rant about Russian polices in the North Caucasus.

Go figure.


Mr Mephisto

PS - I now notice that you have descended into personal insult. Hopefully a mod will lock this now.

OpieCunningham

Not liking the discussion that results in a thread does not mean the thread was hijacked.

I'm not going to stop referring to Stalinist practices as Stalinist practices simply because the size of the population of Chechnya does not equal the size of the population of 1930's Soviet Union.

That's absurd.

I never defended the terrorists. Yet you have repeatedly claimed that I have. That you are now feeling some kinda way since I have turned your own tactics on you is hypocritical.

And the whole point of my response is that any condemnation of the crimes of a ruthless band of criminals which fails to offer an even stronger condemnation of the people that are criminally attacking those criminals is a weak condemnation. Your own argument and claims of criminality mean nothing since you have specifically failed to address context.

No more than you initiated.

Cynthetiq

There's no need to turn this into personal insults.

One needs to remember that opinions are just that. Maybe you both need to take a step back for a moment.

the thread hijack indeed did happen by asking What would you do in place of the Chechens. Let's keep on topic of what would America do? If you'd like to discuss it from a different point of view then please start a thread to facilitate that.

OpieCunningham

I disagree that this should be considered a "hijacking".

The thread is - what would america do - if they were in the place of the Russians. I am asking the same question from the other perspective - what would America do if they were in the place of the Chechens. Yes, technically a new thread could have been started - but it's not like I hijacked the thread by talking about Kerry's service in Vietnam or how to make the best brownies. My _follow up_ question was directly related to the topic.

Cynthetiq

I understand that but you didn't start the thread... his supposition was carefully laid out and you did ask a good question, but IMO is a discussion in and of itself.

Mephisto respected the other thread starters premise and role without hijacking his thread. I'm sure it could easily have "fit" under the original thread but because politics can get heated and ideas pushed from one end to the other he was mindful enough to separate it without moving his thread into a totally different direction. While it does work in more of the other forums in that manner we try to keep the politics forum a bit tighter than other forums.

Again, if you'd like to debate the opposing viewpoint, then by all means start another thread.

OpieCunningham

There seems to be a very fine line between offering an opinion by virtue of another perspective vs. taking something down a tangent.

I can't say I will ever be able to toe that line perfectly. But I understand the stated desire to pay attention to it closely.

whocarz

All you needed to say is that you support those that would murder children to attain their goals. Nothing further needs to be said.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

OpieCunningham

Yes. It would have been more efficient to have said that. If that is even close to what I was saying.

archer2371

*blatant attempt to get thread back on topic*
Different situations and missions. I agree, they are fuckups, but they're not on the same level that I would put the Tehran cluster fuck. I agree, it is a very complex situation, sometimes all you can do is just breach, bang, shoot and hope for the best, especially if your policy is to not negotiate with terrorists. I know these teams aren't always going to win, because you'll always have REMFs (Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers) trying to cover their own asses and that complicates things more than they need to. Also, you've got lots of shit that can happen (Murphy's Law) and they try and prepare for the most contingencies as possible, but sometimes things just go hairy on their own. I think I kind of misunderstood your post, sorry about that, because you make excellent points. I provided a tactical analysis that is very probable if they're able to start such an operation. However, they could very well bring in their "negotiator" (tactical liar would be a better name) and tell them that killing children won't help your image, let them go. Killing women doesn't look so hot either, etc. etc. Until you get down to a very low amount of people and the risks of killing civilians in an operation that eventually takes down the bad guys, dead or alive, most likely dead though.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Mephisto2

Well, it looks like they did their usual and stormed the building. At least 7 dead children, over 150 seriously wounded... facts still unclear.

This kind of result, though very unfortunate, does have one advantage and that's the message that the Russians will never let you get away with it. Of course, they fucked that up by letting some Chechens escape back to their country under safe passage a few years ago, but that's another matter entirely.


Mr Mephisto

bodymassage3

I hate to point this out, as it surely wasn't your intention, but these two bits in particular, (and a few of your other posts) make is seem like you are defending their tactics. If you resort to taking hostages, CHILDREN and INFANT hostages, nonetheless, to further your cause, I think most of us will agree it has the opposite effect.

Whether this story is true or not, thats up to each of us to decide. The story on the news is Russian medics, after negotiations, were "allowed" to approach and get the bodies out in the yard area of those that were killed in the beginning. Apparently, when they approached, two explosions went off, part of the gymnasium caved in, a fire broke out (which burned many alive) children ran, terrorists shot fleeing children, then the Russians engaged. As all of this happened, terrorists who switched from camo to plainclothes to resemble civilians "escaped," and other terrorists are now held up in a nearby house. I hate to sound redudant as most probably know more about the current situation than I did yesterday. I just heard little bits and pieces before today and only had a general idea of whats going on, so maybe this helps someone who was as uninformed as I was yesterday.

Edit: Story changed..About 60 hostages left, 60+ dead.

Personally, I think this is true, because as others have said, if you take hostages there, the Russians are going to kill you. This is the sort of message that they need to get everywhere. Taking hostages does not help your cause. It makes you dead men walking.

roachboy

here is a diagram of the school.
to give detail for those who like to think about how to best johnwayne the situation.
which appears is what happened this morning, though reports are still confusing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/36...stm#schoolplan

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Stompy

Call them on their bluff. They got the idea somewhere that we may give into their demands, the trick is to convince them of the opposite.

It really only boils down to 2 choices:

1. Give into their demands, which is utterly stupid because once you do, they will essentially control you because you gave into "fear". At that point they will have won.

2. Attempt to stop them. If people die in the process, then that's a chance you have to take. If you never give into their demands, then there's no reason for them to think that you will either.. they may be willing to die, but somewhere at the back of their mind they will question it if you've never had a history of negotiating with them.

I dunno, the stupidest thing you can do is give into demands.. because once you do, you don't know if they'll blow themselves up anyway.

__________________
I love lamp.

archer2371

lol! I love the street name "ComIntern Street".
Anyways, looks like what happened is that some kids broke for it and forced the terrorists' hand and they started firing at them and the Russian forces fired back without having a total plan and then they just went in from there. Then after the cavalry started coming in the terrorists started setting off their explosives injuring a bunch of the people and then got the hell out of Dodge. Really unfortunate.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

pedro padilla

damn, situation like that? I´d invade Iran. Maybe Syria and Jordan as well. after that i´d have to check out the latest popularity polls and respond with everything rupert murdoch can muster.l