Don't mess with Russia

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gghornet
There fixed the church thing.

Anyway my being a dumba55 isn't the issue here.I went through a couple of the links,and I agree that Russia was wrong in what they did,but does that make Chechnya right in doing what they did? If that's the case,why didn't the US just drop a nuke on Afghanistan disreguarding civilian casualties because terrorists from their country killed civilians in our country.Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

What did Chechenya do then? You're generalizing this to a we--them -setting too much. Those who invaded the theatre weren't sent by any Chechenian government so you can't blame Chechenia for that in the way you sound you are blaming.

Quote:

---

Secondly, Ruusia is at war with Chechnya. It's not like this is an unprovoked attack. It's a terrible tragedy that civillians were targetted, but I still see it as an act of war.

---

Chechnya is not a legitimate sovereign nation. It was part of Russia
for centuries, but took advantage of the collapse of communism
to break away. They weren't satisfied with independence, but immediately
sent forces into other regions to expand their power.

I don't know what your government would do if some province
decided on its own authority to declare its independence,
but here in Virginia they tried it once in the 1860s. Federal troops
ravaged the Shenandoah valley (where I live) and hanged
hostages in my home town.

If every self-declared ethnic group could have its own nation,no government on earth would survive. Belgium would break in half
Britain into 3 or 4 parts, the USA would be broken into a dozen
warring nations.

Russia was willing to accept Chechen independence, but the Chechens
simply got too greedy.

There should be one iron law on hostage taking:

"You take hostages, you die"
:cool:

BTW, the US general who hanged the hostages was George
Armstrong Custer. Acouple of dudes by the names of Sitting Bull
and Crazy Horse set his ass straight at the battle of little bighorn
a few years later.

http://www.loudoun-net.com/jonpardo/Rhodes.htm

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/peop...crazyhorse.htm

Human rights abuses by the Russian Federation courtesy of Amnesty International

What exactly is a "legitimate" sovereign nation? America, by that definition is not a "legitimate" sovereign nation.

117 hostages died, and still counting... good job :/

583 haven't died,and you still haven't answered the question of how you would recommend the Russian gov't should have handled the situation(Refer to second to last post).No intelligent country gives in to the demands of terrorists,because it's sticks a big fat sign above your nation saying "We are willing to negotiate with terrorists,kidnap/hijack here."And if Chechnya's claim is true and they didn't send these people into the theater,then that is exactly what they are TERRORISTS!!!

I also have to agree with rcgreen on the fact that a country can't just allow everybody that thinks they deserve their own little chunk have it.Although here in the US,everybody screams racism from time to time,and everybody feels a little descriminated from time to time,for the most part we manage to get along no matter what the cultural diversity.Since the demise of the USSR,there's like a hundred little countries scattered throughout that area.What happens if you let the Chechens have what they think they deserve?Then every other little country thinks they deserve a slightly bigger chunk of land,and they'll all end up blasting each other back into the stone age over petty boarder squabbles,and the big countries in Asia are going to remain the same size.

Europe went through the same thing for centuries,and I'm sure still has some of that going on.The large empires are still today the larges countries in Europe,and the countries that spent all that time,money,and lives trying to push their boarder 50 miles further are poor,starving,and filled with disease.I think the Chechans need to be greatful for what they have,and worry about making what they have into a decent place to live before worrying about having more land to have to take care of.

I can't answer that question, gghornet. All I know is that 118 death people out of 700 is NOT a 'great job'. I never said they should have negotiated with the 'terrorists'. You're absolutely right when you say that no intelligent country should give in to the demands of terrorists.
The way they handled it is what bothers me though. Using nerve-gas to take them out was just not the brightest idea, imho.

How about if it was expressed that six out of seven hostages were rescued? Sounds quite good to me, considering that I was pretty sure six out of seven were going to die.

They really didn't have much choice with the gas. It was just sleeping gas but they shot (executed) the stunned terrorists. Hostage deaths were because of the overall bad condition of them in there, some of course got a bullet or broken piece of something. If even one terrorist would have had the time to explode a bomb, it could have lead to a chain reaction of explosions and everyone getting killed.


Something to read for everyone:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Article...usTakedown.htm
http://emernet.emergency.com/fbihost.htm

Hold your horses, ZeroOne, hold your horses... there still are 150 people in intensive care, 45 of them being in critical condition. Not to mention the other 650 who still are in hospital.
The gas being used is probably a gas developed in the early 90's, and has never been used before in times of peace. I guess this was a good opportunity to test the gas.... Too bad they didn't know how to dose it yet. It was NOT just sleeping gas. Only one of the -untill now- 117 victims was killed by gunfire, the others were killed by the gas. Other experts say the deaths are due to the late administering of the antidote.
Shot the terrorists? Government officials have confirmed that probably only 2 terrorists were shot. The others died because of the gas.

Quote:

---

Lev Fyodorov, president of Russian's Union for Chemical Safety
"This was a military operation using non- lethal chemical weapons developed during the Cold War.
They would have been intended for a military opponent."

As such, Mr Fyodorov said the authorities would be unable to prevent deaths of civilians in an enclosed space like the theatre.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ZeroOne

It was just sleeping gas but they shot (executed) the stunned terrorists.

---

The latest reports (on Australian radio) are claiming that the gas used was the Superhallucinogenic BZ gas.

Quote:

---

Superhallucinogenic BZ gas was employed as a counterinsurgency weapon on a limited basis during the Vietnam war. The army eventually concluded that shifting wind patterns, BZ's tendency to trigger maniacal behavior, and the difficulties of controlling the amount of BZ absorbed during combat undermined its usefulness as a nonlethal incapacitant. An overdose of BZ could be fatal.

---

Source


History of BZ

this was really a no win situation. use gas to minimze casualities, their wrong, do nothing and let the hostages be executed, it's why didn't they act. pull their troops out of Chechnya and everyone with what they think is a cause, will start taking hostages.

troops with no ties to anyone inside were told to rush a building rigged to blow. i think they did the right thing.