What would AMERICA do?
 

Based upon some of the comments in the Suspected Chechen rebels take a school hostages thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67544) about how the Russians will likely botch up the siege, or handle the whole thing badly, I'm curious as to what America would do in such a situation.

Imagine this.
Chilling scenario, but so was the idea of planes being used as weapons. What would YOU do in this situation?

It's very easy for us to criticise the Russians. They got flack for letting Chechen rebels withdraw form a hospital siege in 1995. And they got flack for storming another hospital siege the following year and using gas in the 2002 theatre siege.

So, what's your solution? If you don't have one, don't criticise the Russians so much.


Mr Mephisto

I'm not going to criticize the Russians; they have far more restraint than I would have had. If I were running Russia, Grozny would be a sheet of glass and the rest of Chechnya would be an Army camp.

I think they are comparable to the Palastinians, in that both have claims to a homeland, but both go about it the WRONG way.

I'm 100% sure that Bush would simply let SWAT/Delta/SEALs/Rangers or whatever secret highly trained force whipe out the terrorists and accept whatever casualties unfortunately.

Like the bully picking on the smaller people, the only thing terrorists understand is when you punch him right in the throat everytime he picks on a smaller kid. Each and everytime, appeasements only encourage them. Will we suffer casualties (take licks)? Of course but unfortunately for the greater good we must accept them.

Of course the CIA, NSA, and FBI would have the place surrounded in hours. They would set up a perimeter and snipers and watch towers surrounding the entire area. We wo0uld have satelite locations of all the terrorists and hostages from thermal signatures. A representative from one of the above listed government organizations (oxymoron, heh) would make contact with the group. He would distract them while a group of soldiers of some kind would try a rescue misson. After this fails, I'm not sure.

I know what I'd do. I'd try to intercept all transmissions they have made, be sure that you have complete control over the information they get. Cut off all cellular phone use with jamming devices and disconect them from whoever would tell them that the plan has succeded. Then you fake a transmission. Say that we are giving into their demands. This is a mighty risk, but it has a better chance of saving some of those innocent kids then the soldiers. Have a famous tv news anchor break the story and make sure that all the tvs and radios in the school picked up on the report. Then say that we will allow them safe passage. Get the kids out. That has to be priority one. After that, we capture all of them and take compromising photos of them with soldiers.

Bush would once again try and play hero and end up doing more harm than good. Afterwards he will declare war on a random country because they are somehow threats to America.

There's really not much you can do but let em do their thing and better prepare yourself against a situation like that in the future if it gets messy. I'm not sure all what technology we have now, but I'm sure there's something that can be done to disarm/disable them from within.

You can't honestly expect us to just pull out of Iraq because a "terrorist" holds some children hostage in a school. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you give in to something small like that, then there's no stop them from making even more ridiculous demands?

I'm just not sure what kind of example that would set... "Hey if you simply hold some children hostage, we'll do whatever you want!"

That's pretty funny,
How about Kerry?
He would nick himself with his razor get his hearts and get the hell out of dodge!

I think the Russians are trying to handle the situation the best they can, thats all you can do and hope for the best.

Where did I say more harm than good would come of it? I said for the greater good bad things must often happen, which means harm will be done but more good will come of it.

I apoligize, I misunderstood "accept whatever casualties unfortunately." I will edit post.

Now that you put it that way I completely disagree with you ;p.

Agent Johnson: Figure we take out the terrorists, lose twenty, twenty-five percent of the hostages -- tops.
Special Agent Johnson: I can live with that.
Die Hard

If it was a school in my area, they could have a rescue team in the maintainence tunnels and literally coming out of the vents and taking down terrorists before they finished making demands.

I think in the current political state of mind, there would be some ass-kicking going on.

Just a thought, anyone else notice that the fact the term "Chetzchin rebels" never mentions the fact they are also muslim EXTREMISTS. I capitalize the term extremeists as no good ever comes of extremism no matter what the cause.

Well, you kinda have to be a utilitarian to be in the military, it heavily influences our thinking.

I think you have all been reading too much Tom Clancy or playing Counter Strike and Splinter Cell.

There is NO WAY Special Forces could attack a well defended group of hostage takers without their having a chance to detonate the explosive belts they were wearing.

Maintenance tunnels... infrared cameras...

Sheesh.

The point of the exercise is to show you that sometimes there is very little you can do. Either attack them, and accept that it may end in a bloodbath, or bow to their demands. In other words, those who criticise the Russians or suggest their own "super plans" are missing the point. You can't do much against a man or woman with 5Kg of Semtex on his body, who is surrounded by children and willing to blow themselves to buggery, without warning their 16 other terrorists companions that something is up.

In other words, it's a lose lose situation.

Gas "worked" once. I doubt it will work again. Perhaps there will be a miracle and Spetznaz will indeed end up in taking the hostage takers out before they murder the children. But I doubt it. Another tragedy is at hand I fear...


Mr Mephisto

First off, what's the layout of the street and the surrounding blocks? Also, do you have a schematic of the school, are they being held in the gymnasium, auditorium, classroom, hallway? A lot of factors go into that. Are they being held in multiple classrooms? If the terrorists had any sense, that's what they'd do and keep constant communication and as soon as a link went down somewhere, everyone dies. However, trip wires can be easily handled as long as the terrorists are kept busy talking on the phone with someone. Bomb strap belts are easy to take care of too, one in the chest and two in the head, unless they have "dead-men" switches on, that's more complicated, perhaps using a neuro-agent in a dart that would cause the muscles to clenc rather than relax. If they're in an auditorium, the doors are going to be closed, and the children will most likely be in seats. Blow the doors with as minimal primacord as possible, toss in flashbangs and just go at 'em from all angles. Gymnasium, basically same gameplan, but you can have guys fast rope from a Black Hawk through windows as well as the primacord, flashbang, shoot to kill. Classrooms, most tricky of them all, because of the fact that primacord on the doors could kill a kid. You would need to fast rope from the roof, so many Black Hawks in an area would give off too much noise, however, the windows and frames into the classroom would have to be weakened with small primacord charges timed to go off just before the FBI HRT goes in with flashbangs and silenced sub-machine guns to take all those suckers down. Again, some sort of neuro-agent dart could be used to kill and clench the muscles if the bombs on them are arranged with dead men switches. Or you could send the pizza boy in with special valium toppings on the pizzas. There's a lot of circumstances that are unknown from your situation report, if you had specifics, I'd be able to tell you definitely what I'd do. That's all I could come up with tho.

Actually, that's the most plausible place you can get that sort of info without actually being on the FBI HRT. My response was based on knowledge I have gathered from guys who have been on the HRT (Quantico's just right down the road) and they say that Tom Clancy can get pretty close to the real shit 99% of the time. Believe me, I've presented this question to these guys, or something similar to it, it all depends on what the layout of the room and building is. They tell me, if there's a will for them, there's definitely a way to kill the bad guys.

ya know, russia has a nice policy with terrorists actually..You fuck with russians, they shoot you, that's about it.

As for what america would do...Honestly, i believe the official policy is not to deal with terrorists, so it would probably be a "send in the "insert special forces team here" and accept whatever casualties. Now, one thing i do know anti-terrorist groups are allowed to do is LIE like crazy. They can promise anything and not be held accountable, so there could be a possibility of there being not so many casualties, but as far as what would work, i dunno

I think Paq has the most reasonable and plausible response of all.

Lie to them. Offer them free passage out of the country. Then shoot them when you have a clear shot.

Mr Mephisto

I don't know if this was anecdotal or not, but a year or so after the Iranian hostage crisis my highschool science teacher told us that some students had also taken over the Russian compound in Iran and taken hostages.

The Russian response was something like, the people there knew the risk, but you have invaded Russian soil, and the (nuke) bombers are in the air. The Iranian response was something like, opps, we thought you were Americans!! Sorry!!!

Again, don't know if it was true or not, but I can absolutely see Russia doing it.


As to America, we would send Delta in, hostages would die, and the liberals would hand wring and complain that we should have negotiated and why didn't Bush do something to prevent it?

That's what the Germans tried in 1972 to save the Israeli Olympic team, but they royally screwed up and everyone died. It is the best way, but also extremely risky.

Where's John McClane when you need him (oops, there's already been a Die Hard reference in here...)

My guess is, something goes bad, a couple kids get killed, and the Russians launch an all-out attack in a rage.

i think everyone would die. i highly doubt even our highly trained special ops teams could get in and out with "minimal" losses. i don't think it's possible to get every bomb, and if they're also wearing suicide vests, then i think at least some explosives woudl end up going off.

The problem in the 1972 Olympics' attempt to save the Israeli Olympic team was that they were unable to take out the guys with the grenades via snipers. They had actually gunned down many but one nade into the helicopter and boom, everyone dies.

Of course, this is a big reason why counter-terrorism specialist forces *have* been created in the first place - in response to how poorly regular police would do in these situations.

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Let the special ops people do what they train for, and wait to count the bodies when they're done.

Breach, bang, done. This is what these people do.

We have people who's job is to go into a building and kill hostage takers while saving hostages. That's all they do. They train for these kinds of situations all the time. They eat, breathe and shit this stuff. I think it comes down to a question of training. The Russians aren't nearly as well trained for these things. The Spetznaz is trained to kill, that's it. There is no saving of hostages. If the hostages manage to survive somehow, then that's a plus. This is why the Russians have such a bad record when it comes to these situations. There are quiet a few hostage or barricaded suspect incidents each year in the United States, but they normally end with only the badguys in bodybags.

Two words: Special Forces.

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. That's why they're kidnapping the French journalists over in Iraq now. :P

send in Sam Fisher. actually that's not his job eh...

then just like Hwed said it, Special Forces :D

What makes you think this? They have FAR more experience than the Americans have. The ONLY situation where American forces tried this ended in farce and multiple deaths during the attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages back in 1980.

The Russians have been experiencing this kind of attack for years, and responding for years.

Smells like typical "America is better than the rest of the world" bullshit to me.

Again, this is nonesense. For the record, Spetznaz are military special forces, and not those primarily tasked with anti-kidnapping or hostage situations. I should have made this clear. This is usually left to the so-called "Alpha" unit (created by Andropov in 1974) and OMON units (part of the MVD, or Department of the Interior).

They ALL have considerably more experience and success than untested American units.

Well, this mass generalization shows you don't really understand the issues.

One or two criminals holed up in a bank, faced with a SWAT team, is not the same as what the Russians are dealing with.


Mr Mephisto

I think that you fail to understand the American mindset at the same time however. The point is that we would try, because it's the right thing to do. Those guys in the HRT would do it without question to their superiors, even if the guy in there was wired to a nuke. The point is that they have a plan for everything and they train for it. Sure, we may not have as much in-the-field experience as other countries, but sometimes that just doesn't mean jack shit. The 1980 situation was a debacle, but the American Military just doesn't fuck up like that twice, and we have learned from it. That operation resulted in the creation of the 161st SOAR Night Stalkers, and the need for better training was never more evident, so everyone in federal law enforcement and the military stepped it up so that they would have a response to this kind of situation. I know it's not the same as the Russian situation, but I guarantee you that we would try to save those children and take down the bad guys, no ifs ands or buts.

Mr. Mephisto, the Al'fa units are a part of the Spetznaz, the real name of the unit being Spetsgruppa A. The reason why I believe the Russian special forces don't do as well saving hostage lives is because there is still the callous Soviet mentality regarding human life in the Russian military/paramilitary forces, e.g. victory at all costs.

COUGH

What about the Navy SEALs disasterous assault on Patilla Airfield? 5 SEALs killed, 8 seriously wounded, retreat, ignominy, failure.

I'm not knocking anyone, but don't be so sure you're teams are always right or the best.

You'll hate me saying this, but even the lauded SpecOps action depicted in BlackHawk Down is evidence of a fuck-up, poor planning and unnecessary deaths. Even more would have been experienced if the Pakistani UN troops had not arrived to bail your Delta Force guys out.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm quite certain, in fact, that you would do your utmost to save them. I'm just posing a hypothetical question to show that this kind of terrorist hostage situation is very complex and not easy to resolve. I'm not specifically "attacking" US Forces or American tactics.

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, the Patilla Airfield disaster was caused by a bad command decision. The Navy Seals don't train to take over airfields. That's a job for the Rangers. The battle in Mogadishu in 1993 is another example of bad command decisions. That being said, I think our boys preformed admirably. A 100:1 kill ratio is not something to dismiss.

Follow up question:

What would an American do if they were in the position of a Chechen?

Yes, you're right. Alfa are part of the military Spetznaz. But the term Spetznaz is misleading. It simply means "Special Purposes" (or similiar) and almost all Russian forces have Spetznaz teams; even the tax police!

Alfa, OMON and even the Vympel units would be the ones who would like carry out any assault on this hypothetical siege.

OMON are not military, but "police"; kind of like a mixture between SWAT and Delta Force.

Alfa and Vympel are like the US Delta Force.

If you want more info, just shout.


Mr Mephisto


PS - Vympel were transferred out of military command to MVD after they refused to storm the Parliament during the 1991 coup (thereby saving Russian "democracy"). Later the unit was disbanded, but some reports are that is has been reformed.

If you think US Spec Ops are shadowy, you should research what the Russians do. It's very complex and confusing!

We were once.

And we didn't go over to England and murder children, nor use our own children as suicide bombers to make George III pull his troops out.

We also weren't outnumbered some tens of thousands to one, outgunned with VASTLY superior firepower and surrounded on all sides by the enemy.

And I'd have to take exception to your implication that the British were indiscriminantly kidnapping and torturing us.

Plus, we had the French. Without whom we would have lost. Chechens have no one offering practical support to wage a military campaign.

Try again.

Well since the title is what would America do. America would most likely bomb the school themselves to kill the terrorist and then say that all those innocent lives lost were lost for the "war on terror."
What I would do is find out what they realy have, some how find out where the bombs are etc and then send in special forces to rescue the kids.

Well said.

These people are scum. And they do their cause a disservice.


Mr Mephisto

He didn't imply that. Read again.

:-)


Mr Mephisto

The Russians are scum. The Chechens are scum.

Now that we've gotten the black+white name calling out of the way - what exactly would you do if you were in the position of the Chechens?

I see three options:

1- Terrorist acts
2- Gandhi turn the other cheek acts
3- An all out defense against the Russian military for as long as possible (a matter of days) while appealing to peaceniks around the globe (peaceniks who can't even get their own gov'ts to refrain from preemptive wars, let alone getting their own gov't to convince the Russians to refrain from murdering the Chechen civilians)

The only one of those three options which would produce anything other than the Chechens' total annihilation at the hands of the Russian military is option #1.

Or maybe you have another option?

Yes he did imply that. The position of the Chechens is one in which they are being tortured and murdered by the Russian military (did you read the article I linked?).

I asked what would an American do in that situation.

He said we were once in that situation.

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.

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.

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

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


Mr Mephisto

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

I wish I was joking.


Mr Mephisto

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

*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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Well it looks like the hostage situation was handled with typical putin skill & tact. A bloodbath, nicely done. :thumbsup:
:rolleyes:

Is anybody really surprised that this turned out any other way than this? Sadly 100+ casulties were taken, what's even worse is it was almost a best case scenario all things considered.

well i think the americans (and us ozzies) would negotiatite (ie lie, misdirect etc) to get as many people\women\children etc out, and keep doing that, all the while planning and bringing in speciallist (ie seal, MEU SOC units (could be a american school in a foriegn land), delta, SAS (in australia case) swat whose units have trained for this type of action) as soon as someone gets shot they would go in, and would take the terrorists into custodey (either in handcuffs or a bodybag) and rescue as many hostages as quickly and safely as possible. Then the bleeding heart hippies would demand that a commision be created that condems president bush for killing the hostages, and then micheal moore will create a complete work of fiction and claim it to be true. All the while osama bin laden sits in his cave lauging at the dumb americans blaming their president for the deaths, instead of himself.

DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.

Over 100 hostages dead, many of them children. No word on how many terrorists or Russian units are dead. There are still some hostage takers holding out.

Surely stroming a school on US soil by foreign terrorists would be tough. It is very possible, however, that a similar attack might happen on one of the american schools that are run by american ambassies in arab countries. I know for a fact that there used to be a big american school in Damascus (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state...odamascus.html - BTW, isn't it creepy how much intel info you can gather through the Internet?). There are numerous similar american schools like that throught the middle east region. It's not very hard to imagine a group of terrorists sneaking into Syria through the unguarded Iraqi border and storming the school. I just hope that attacking schools won't be "the next big thing" for terrorists.

If this happened in America:
1 - the media (local & foreign) would descend on the scene like piranhas in heat.
2 - the building would be surrounded by an army reserve battalion.
3 - jesse jackson would arrive in a limo with his posse, all in black ray-bans.
4 - geraldo would arrive via helicopter.
5 - oprah would hold a 'Village Congregation' with the relatives of the hostages. much emotion and venting.
6 - an unknown local would get shot and wounded trying to steal away one of the hostages, in the process becoming a nationwide folk hero and appearing on mainstream magazine covers.
7 - president bush would declare a state of emergency. would remain on campaign trail.
8 - john kerry would call for establishing an immediate dialougue with the hostages. would pipe blankets, food, water and toliet paper into the school.
9 - washington would consult with israel as to methods of approach.
10 - john ashcroft appears on the morning talk shows, puts america back to sleep.
11 - terrorist-alert awareness' programs adopted in schools & universities across america, spearheaded by tom ridge & homeland security.
12 - standoff unceremoniously drags on into Day 47.
13 - shaq offers to give the families of the hostages $3 million.
14 - unmanned drones fly 24-7 surveillance runs over school, pissing off locals with the noise. one mysteriously shot down, cause unknown. lands in mayor's pool. now mayor pissed, too.
15 - wag photog snipes a fuzzy pic of the terrorist leader as he runs by window. image manipulation experts called in from around the globe...cnn allots 6 hours a night to interview experts and bring up wild hypotheticals. zapruder film referenced.
16 - standoff unceremoniously drags on into Day 73. a few kids manage to escape by squeezing into ventilation ducts.
17 - infighting amongst hostage takers, rebellion sets in. battalion snipers reportedly kill 18 'terrorists'. validity disputed - possibly civilian casualites?
18 - a movie script is passed around hollywood studios.
19 - world looks on in wonder.
20 - On Day 112, kidnapper's demands met; town renamed 'freedom city'.

:crazy:

edit: let me just say that I posted this nonsense before I heard that 200 people, women & children, died today in the school. I didn't mean to be grossly insensitive, just stupidly satirical; mods delete if desired.