Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   What would AMERICA do? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/67559-what-would-america-do.html)

Mephisto2 09-01-2004 01:40 PM

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.
Quote:

50 militant Al Queda terrorists storm a school function somewhere in the United States and round up between 200 and 300 hostages, including at least 200 children (some as young as 7 years of age).

They rig the place for explosives, fitting trip wires and wearing explosive belts.

They are heavily armed, ruthless and ready to die, as is proven by past attacks.

They state that for every one of their number killed they will execute 50 children.

They have sufficient supplies to last 30 days.

They demand that the US withdraw from Iraq and will start shooting 5 children per day in 24 hours if their demands are not met.
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

djtestudo 09-01-2004 02:51 PM

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.

Seaver 09-01-2004 02:59 PM

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.

Willravel 09-01-2004 03:01 PM

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.

Rdr4evr 09-01-2004 03:04 PM

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.

Stompy 09-01-2004 05:38 PM

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!"

reconmike 09-01-2004 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
I agree with Seaver on this one. Bush would once again try and play hero and end up doing more harm than good.

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.

Seaver 09-01-2004 05:57 PM

Quote:

I agree with Seaver on this one. Bush would once again try and play hero and end up doing more harm than good.
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.

Rdr4evr 09-01-2004 06:00 PM

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.

Kadath 09-01-2004 06:21 PM

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

MSD 09-01-2004 06:35 PM

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.

09-01-2004 06:54 PM

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.

Seaver 09-01-2004 06:55 PM

Quote:

I apoligize, I misunderstood "accept whatever casualties unfortunately." I will edit post.
Well, you kinda have to be a utilitarian to be in the military, it heavily influences our thinking.

Mephisto2 09-01-2004 07:15 PM

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

archer2371 09-01-2004 07:30 PM

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.

archer2371 09-01-2004 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
I think you have all been reading too much Tom Clancy...

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.

Paq 09-01-2004 07:36 PM

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

Mephisto2 09-01-2004 07:51 PM

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

Lebell 09-01-2004 08:33 PM

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?

djtestudo 09-01-2004 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
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

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.

hannukah harry 09-01-2004 11:35 PM

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.

Zeld2.0 09-01-2004 11:55 PM

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.

analog 09-01-2004 11:58 PM

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.

whocarz 09-02-2004 12:10 AM

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.

Hwed 09-02-2004 02:57 AM

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

orphen 09-02-2004 03:11 AM

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

then just like Hwed said it, Special Forces :D

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz
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.

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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

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.
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

archer2371 09-02-2004 06:39 AM

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.

whocarz 09-02-2004 11:20 AM

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.

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371
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.

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.

Quote:

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.
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

whocarz 09-02-2004 12:30 PM

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.

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 12:33 PM

Follow up question:

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

Quote:

Chechnya Gripped by Stalinist Terror, or Where Do Suicide Bombers Come From

Why are women traveling from a remote southern Russian region all the way to Moscow to put on explosive belts and kill themselves, taking innocent bystanders’ lives with them? Oleg Orlov of the International Society Memorial, Russia’s top human rights organization, sheds light on the reasons that push Chechen suicide bombers to their drastic actions. The number of quiet, undocumented kidnappings of people from their homes by federal forces in Chechnya is comparable to statistics for the peak of Stalinist repressions in 1937-1938.

Memorial estimates that approximately 3,000 people had vanished in Chechnya during the four years from 1999 to 2003. Given Chechnya’s estimated population of 700,000, that works out to approximately 43 disappearances per every 10,000 people. During the height of Stalinist terror, people were plucked from their beds at night and taken away, never to be seen again; the figures for those years are, 44 disappearances per every 10,000 people. Back in those days, slander or hearsay information from a malevolent neighbor or co-worker was often enough to doom someone.

Which is exactly what’s happening in Chechnya — people are beginning to inform on each other as a way of personal revenge or sometimes for “commercial” reasons — for instance, if a member of a well-off family is taken away, ransom can be demanded. Over the past years, says Orlov, he’s seeing a hereto unknown feeling paralyze Chechen villagers: fear. “It used to be that fear was considered beneath Chechens, that they must be courageous and open.” And now, “Chechens are afraid of Chechens. Neighbors are afraid of neighbors.”

In the light of these changes, the previous tactic of zachistki begins to make sense. It seemed like a dumb way of combating terrorism, Orlov says — taking all the men of a village, beating them, and asking them ridiculous questions, such as “Where is Basayev?” (Shamil Basayev is one of Chechnya’s militant warlords; according to some hypotheses, he’s behind the current attack on a school in southern Russia) or “Who are the rebels in your village?” However, when the beatings are conducted on a mass scale, someone’s bound to crack. Someone’s bound to say something, implicating one or another fellow villager. And then this someone is forever hooked by the special services.

“From that moment on, this person can always be handed a bill,” Orlov says. “You can always say to him — ’Hey, man, do you remember how last year you said something about some people from their village and then they disappeared or else fragments of their bodies were found in the forest? Do you realize that now you have to always tell us things?’” Thus, the zachistki of two years ago helped create a region-wide network of informers — whose reports are now used to execute the targeted kidnappings of today.

Full Article:
http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/09/01/terror.shtml

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz
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.

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!

Lebell 09-02-2004 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Follow up question:

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

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.

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell
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.

Dwayne 09-02-2004 01:45 PM

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.

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell
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.

Well said.

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


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 01:47 PM

Quote:

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

He didn't imply that. Read again.

:-)


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Well said.

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

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?

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
He didn't imply that. Read again.

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.

Lebell 09-02-2004 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
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.


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.

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 09-02-2004 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Now that we've gotten the black+white name calling out of the way

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.

Quote:

- what exactly would you do if you were in the position of the Chechens?
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.

Quote:

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)
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)

Quote:

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.
Demonstrably wrong.

Quote:

Or maybe you have another option?
See above.



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
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.

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


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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 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 09-02-2004 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
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.

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.
Quote:

You are making a fundamental mistake in logic and do yourself and me a disfavour.
No, I think we already determined that your emotional response is the mistake in logic, by nature.
Quote:

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.
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.
Quote:

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.
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.
Quote:

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)
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 09-02-2004 02:20 PM

Quote:

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

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 09-02-2004 02:35 PM

Quote:

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

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 09-02-2004 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 09-02-2004 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
No, I think we already determined that your emotional response is the mistake in logic, by nature.

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

Quote:

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'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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:


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.

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.

Quote:

5- This has been going on for years. It hasn't stopped the Stalinist tactics of the Russians at all.
So it hasn't worked in the past 10 years. Therefore you justify the murder of innocent civilians and children and the sick?

Quote:

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.
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 09-02-2004 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
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 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.
Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

Exactly what I said. Political means. Work within the system. Vote in a regime that will slowly, peacefully move away from Moscow.
This is what they did. They tried to peacefully move away from Moscow. Moscow responded by attacking them.
Quote:

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?"
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.
Quote:

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

And it IS that simple.
No. It is quite clearly not simple.
Quote:

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.
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.
Quote:

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.
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 09-02-2004 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.


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 09-02-2004 03:06 PM

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 09-02-2004 03:08 PM

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.

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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
As I said above, they have more options.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

This is what they did. They tried to peacefully move away from Moscow. Moscow responded by attacking them.
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.

Quote:

That's not what I meant. I mean what else do you think could possibly happen? Everything you have suggested does not apply.
Everything I have suggested does not apply? Well, there's not much response to that kind of blatant intransient statement now, is there? LOL


Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

You speak those words, but I don't see that as being true.
Well, that's your opinion. You can believe you can see into my head if you want, but you obviously cannot.

Quote:

You have offered up no logical recourse which would not result in either their continued suffering or their death.
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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

Is that righteous?
No. But you seem to imply it is.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 09-02-2004 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
If you disagree that Chechens are suffering, you should have said so at the beginning.

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).

Quote:

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.
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 09-02-2004 03:30 PM

Quote:

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

I haven't defended anything. But you have denied that Chechens are suffering from a Stalinist dictatorship. Is that a defense of the Russians?
Quote:

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?
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.
Quote:

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.
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.
Quote:

Well, it seems to me that you are justifying their actions. What else would you call your repeated defence of their attack?
If I have defended the Chechens, then you have defended the Russians, who are equally morally bankrupt in this situation.
Quote:

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.
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.
Quote:

Everything seems to be black and white in your book. It's not.
Hah! That's comedy gold.

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 03:33 PM

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 09-02-2004 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

Quote:

If I have defended the Chechens, then you have defended the Russians, who are equally morally bankrupt in this situation.
Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

Quote:

Hah! That's comedy gold.
I wish I was joking.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Actually I didn't. Reread what I posted.

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

Quote:

I wish I was joking.
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 09-02-2004 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz
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.

Actually that's not true.

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

Quote:

Clearly, the tradgedy at Patilla was the fault of poor planning. But there were many factors that played into the events that took place, and many questions that should be asked. Why weren't the Rangers given this mission? Why did the Naval command decide to use such a large operating force? Why was the advice of an experienced operator and decorated SEAL ignored? Could the gunship had provided enough cover and broken Panimanian resistance had it been in contact with the team?
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 09-02-2004 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
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.

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 09-02-2004 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
No worries - I had a nice laugh at it anyway.

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 09-02-2004 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 09-02-2004 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 09-02-2004 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 09-02-2004 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
This is my final post to this thread, which you successfully hijacked. Congratulations! :-)

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

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

Blatant and intentional misquoting and misinterpretation of what was said.
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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

PS - I now notice that you have descended into personal insult. Hopefully a mod will lock this now.
No more than you initiated.

Cynthetiq 09-02-2004 04:43 PM

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 09-02-2004 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
[COLOR=Red]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.

Cynthetiq 09-02-2004 04:56 PM

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 09-02-2004 05:00 PM

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 09-02-2004 09:46 PM

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

OpieCunningham 09-02-2004 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

archer2371 09-03-2004 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
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

*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.

Mephisto2 09-03-2004 05:26 AM

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 09-03-2004 05:56 AM

Quote:

Let's take it one step further and demand that the Russians let the Chechens secede RIGHT NOW.
Quote:

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.
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 09-03-2004 06:17 AM

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

Stompy 09-03-2004 07:26 AM

Quote:

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?
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.

archer2371 09-03-2004 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

pedro padilla 09-03-2004 07:59 AM

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

powerclown 09-03-2004 08:03 AM

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

Mojo_PeiPei 09-03-2004 08:11 AM

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.

dbcb 09-03-2004 08:52 AM

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.

dbcb 09-03-2004 08:53 AM

DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.

whocarz 09-03-2004 09:33 AM

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.

Schwan 09-03-2004 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
50 militant Al Queda terrorists storm a school function somewhere in the United States and round up between 200 and 300 hostages, including at least 200 children (some as young as 7 years of age).

They rig the place for explosives, fitting trip wires and wearing explosive belts.

They are heavily armed, ruthless and ready to die, as is proven by past attacks.

They state that for every one of their number killed they will execute 50 children.

They have sufficient supplies to last 30 days.

They demand that the US withdraw from Iraq and will start shooting 5 children per day in 24 hours if their demands are not met.

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.

powerclown 09-03-2004 11:59 AM

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360