sweet, can't wait till AK-47s are easily available here, too!!!
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Yeah taking those kids hostage is pretty messed up. :angry:dante said:
So have they definately linked the Plane crashes and the lady suicide bomber the the Chechyen rebels? Or is it all strong suspicion? The black boxes were supposedly toasted and unsavable from the planes.
Some website said they claim responsibility. They are probably still tracking it down....with most arrows pointed to the rebels.
Not definitively, but all signs point to Chechnya. Sucks, because Chechnya actually *had* de facto independence in the mid-90s. Then the militants had illusions of grandeur and tried exporting their islamist state to nearby ex-Soviet states through kidnappings and bombings, and Russia invaded after the apt. bombings. No end in sight, really, b/c Russia doesn't trust Chechnya w/ independence after the previous kidnappings/bombings/attacks, etc.RhinofromWA said:
:angry:
Hard to believe Muslims causing problems.
Never thought that would happen.
Never thought that would happen.
:evil:Jesus said:
So how is the AK-47 to blame? (as your title implies...) 
ROEE? Is that you?
Yeah I thought that to, but I decided to talk about the issue at hand. hundreds of people held hostage instead of whether AK47's should be legal....that has its own thread.Tenchiro said:So how is the AK-47 to blame? (as your title implies...)
The sad thing is Russias ill preparedness for a situation like this.
just looking for more depth to your statement. Not questioning the statement more like asking for some more info.TheMontashu said:
I never heard how long it took to react to the crisis.....or do you mean trying to stop people hell bent on doing something like this.
What happened in Russia can happen anywhere.
Anywhere.I don't think there is a sure fire way to stop an event like this from happening....or were the Russians negligent?
But the Russians dont know how to handle it. Like in the instance of the Moscow ballet were the Russian police gassed the building and killed a bunch of people cause of it.
Fair enough.TheMontashu said:
What would be the better way to handle it? I kind of remember the ballet (I thought it was a movie theater or something...not important) Did everyone die?....or did alot get out? I am fuzzy on the details on what went down.
Blank video tape?
I missed that the first time I read it.
The people that took that theatre hostage were prepared to go Oklahoma City with all the hostages inside. But only a handful of people died as a result of the gas, and it could have been much worse. I saw a video of the bomb they had, and it was absolutely gigantic. Not to mention all the terrorists were loaded with personal explosives.
If it happened in the US, I don't think we would have been anymore prepared to deal with the situation.
If it happened in the US, I don't think we would have been anymore prepared to deal with the situation.
Do you really think that if this were the case in the USA, we could handle it any better?TheMontashu said:
Who is prepared for armed gunmen to invade a school? Keep in mind these gunmen would happily die and kill the children in the process.
I'm sure that they know that when it gets dark the Russians will try something. They have to realize that the appropriate troops can be assembled within 12 hours... so they are working on a time limit.
The Russian police pumped vomit gas into the building, when they were removing the hostages they laid them on there back and most of the people drowned in there vomit.(it was all the polices fault that the people died)RhinofromWA said:
RhinofromWA said:
they need to bring some israelis to check out the business.
a few years ago, like 14 terrorist with rpgs, ak47, fals and lot of heavy stuff took the house the japanese ambassador in Lima during a social. 400-something initial hostages. they started to free a few every week, as 400 people in a house is a crapload of people.
the entire thing lasted like 6 months, ended up with a bit over 100 hostages in the house, including a prime minister, the mom of the president, a few congressman and a couple majors, etc.
elite infantry stormed the house from a 600ft tunnel and climbed over walls. they killed all the mofos, no mercy, no human rights crap, and some say post-storm executions, only 3 casualties. 2 soldiers, 1 hostage.
most of those soldiers in the peruvian army are trained in israel. israelis kick ass in war stuff. the russians need to get some israelis to deal with it.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they've learned by now, and I'd expect them to have redundancy, with all of the hostages strapped with explosives as well as the fighters themselves...one way or another, military intervention will have an ugly end...ugly enough for political effect, in any case. It's the Chechen's fault and indeed their intent, but the ball is now in Russia's court as to what consequences they're willing to accept.
You can't defend against this sort of thing most of the time, unless you can intercept it long before it happens...you can only respond, and in the long term, try to take action at the root cause.
'Terrorism' is a virus, and you need to fight it as such...first, treat symptoms if possible, then study it, find out where it breeds and how it spreads, contain it from what you've learned, and lessen its ability to infect, and finally discover a vaccine and innoculate as many people and places as you can.
You can't defend against this sort of thing most of the time, unless you can intercept it long before it happens...you can only respond, and in the long term, try to take action at the root cause.
'Terrorism' is a virus, and you need to fight it as such...first, treat symptoms if possible, then study it, find out where it breeds and how it spreads, contain it from what you've learned, and lessen its ability to infect, and finally discover a vaccine and innoculate as many people and places as you can.
Well, clearly that is why every Amurrican should have to carry an AK47 by law, so the bad people wouldn't mess with 'em.Slugman said:
Hell, if each of the schoolchildren in Russia had been SWAT trained we'd just be looking at a bunch of dead Muslim scum now.
... the libby news called the scum hostage takers "militants" and not terrorists.
Is the word 'terrorist' too judgemntal for the liberal press?
Is the word 'terrorist' too judgemntal for the liberal press?
Words:
Mil´i`tant
Noun 1. militant - a militant reformer
activist
Black Muslim - an activist member of a largely American group of Blacks called the Nation of Islam
Black Panther - a member of the Black Panthers political party
crusader, meliorist, reformer, reformist - a disputant who advocates reform
Malcolm Little, Malcolm X - militant civil rights leader (1925-1965)
Adj. 1. militant - engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"; "a fighting war"
war-ridden, warring, belligerent, fighting
unpeaceful - not peaceful; "unpeaceful times"; "an unpeaceful marriage"
2. militant - showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
competitive
aggressive - having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends; "an aggressive businessman"; "an aggressive basketball player"; "he was aggressive and imperious; positive in his convictions"; "aggressive drivers"
Ter´ror`ist
Noun 1. terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"
cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk, hacker - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism
Jacobin - a member of the radical movement that instituted the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution
radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions
sleeper - a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal
suicide bomber - a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people
bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, Usama bin Laden - Arab terrorist who established al-Qaeda (born in 1957)
Jafar, Jafar Umar Thalib, Jaffar, Jaffar Umar Thalib - Indonesian terrorist and Islamic militant who commands the Laskar Jihad; uses violence to achieve political ends
Andres Martinez, Carlos, Carlos the Jackal, Glen Gebhard, Hector Hevodidbon, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, Ilich Sanchez, Michael Assat, Salim, Sanchez, Taurus - Venezuelan master terrorist raised by a Marxist-Leninist father; trained and worked with many terrorist groups (born in 1949)
Adj. 1. terrorist - characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state"
political science, politics, government - the study of government of states and other political units
violent - acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity; "a violent attack"; "a violent person"; "violent feelings"; "a violent rage"; "felt a violent dislike"
Mil´i`tant
Noun 1. militant - a militant reformer
activist
Black Muslim - an activist member of a largely American group of Blacks called the Nation of Islam
Black Panther - a member of the Black Panthers political party
crusader, meliorist, reformer, reformist - a disputant who advocates reform
Malcolm Little, Malcolm X - militant civil rights leader (1925-1965)
Adj. 1. militant - engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"; "a fighting war"
war-ridden, warring, belligerent, fighting
unpeaceful - not peaceful; "unpeaceful times"; "an unpeaceful marriage"
2. militant - showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
competitive
aggressive - having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends; "an aggressive businessman"; "an aggressive basketball player"; "he was aggressive and imperious; positive in his convictions"; "aggressive drivers"
Ter´ror`ist
Noun 1. terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"
cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk, hacker - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism
Jacobin - a member of the radical movement that instituted the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution
radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions
sleeper - a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal
suicide bomber - a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people
bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, Usama bin Laden - Arab terrorist who established al-Qaeda (born in 1957)
Jafar, Jafar Umar Thalib, Jaffar, Jaffar Umar Thalib - Indonesian terrorist and Islamic militant who commands the Laskar Jihad; uses violence to achieve political ends
Andres Martinez, Carlos, Carlos the Jackal, Glen Gebhard, Hector Hevodidbon, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, Ilich Sanchez, Michael Assat, Salim, Sanchez, Taurus - Venezuelan master terrorist raised by a Marxist-Leninist father; trained and worked with many terrorist groups (born in 1949)
Adj. 1. terrorist - characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state"
political science, politics, government - the study of government of states and other political units
violent - acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity; "a violent attack"; "a violent person"; "violent feelings"; "a violent rage"; "felt a violent dislike"
fluff said:
I don't believe that came from your dictionary...
Because George W. Bush isn't listed in your Terrorist daffy-nition...
What's your definition?
It's just a very, very non-specific term, and in fact, it's often used where 'insurgent' is more appropriate. The Chechens in question are militant Islamist separatists. They can fall under the blanket term 'terrorist' (then again, so can pretty much anyone, depending on your point of view), but it doesn't tell you much about them, their motives, methods, or goals. It just tells you they're sccccaaaaaarrryyy and bad.N8 said:... the libby news called the scum hostage takers "militants" and not terrorists.
Is the word 'terrorist' too judgemntal for the liberal press?
MD
MikeD said:
Yet, for some reason, all of the 9-11 hijackers are called 'terrorists' here in the US by the press.
I've never heard them called militants or insurgents.
Wierd.
Well, the US press is famous for throwing around inaccurate terminology, and the American public clings to the word 'terrorist' for anyone and everyone we don't like these days.N8 said:
That said, the 9/11 hijackers were indeed terrorists, as best I can define them, as opposed to insurgents. They were operating covertly, abroad, trying to affect political policy change in a foreign country through violence. That's got nothing to do with these Chechens, who are operating in their own country and attempting to affect a separation from Russia. (edit: also note that they *could* be considered terrorists by the Russians, as I said above...but that blanket label just doesn't tell you much about them.)
Vive la differance...sorry if it's too complicated to consider.
MD
it's not that the AK-47 is to blame, it's the availability and proliferation of such weapons... I shudder to think of what would happen if 20 terrorists were able to walk into a gun shop in Alabama somewhere, buy Ak-47s and high-capacity clips, then head over to the local elementary school. Armed population my azz, it's not like we walk around with M16s slung over our shoulders, and a handgun isn't going to do much in this situation.Tenchiro said:So how is the AK-47 to blame? (as your title implies...)
Combine availability of assualt-style weapons, some explosives, and people willing to die and there's really not much we can do to stop a situation like what's going on in Russia right now... :angry:
Actually Beslan is in North Ossetia and not Chechnya. North Ossetia is an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation (always and interesting concept).MikeD said:
Either way, taking kids hostage is cowardly by any standards.
The school is in North Ossetia, but the guys with the guns are Chechens. (Edit: Point taken, they're operating outside Chechnya...but it's still all taking place in side de facto Russia.)fluff said:
(link to the Economist story: http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3150096 )
People (Terrorists for N8) employ tactics like these because they beleive that their enemies are weak and can not accept loss. If you give in to any of their demands or try to negotiate it just reinforces their ideas. It would be interesting if the Russians just dropped a fuel air explosive over the school taking everyone out. It would be an interesting response that might deter such a thing happening again. Of course if I had family in the school I might think otherwise.
Gas powered, magazine fed rifles are not hard to come by in America. Any adult can go buy an SKS or an M1A and throw on a 10 round magazine...dante said:
Hell you could go to Walmart and walk out with a small arsenal.
And if you emphasise just how much you fear terrorists it also reinforces their ideas and encourages more attacks because they believe it matters to you.Westy said:
Hence by exaggerating the terrorist threat the US govt actually encourage terrorists. And they are not alone.
In a situation like this it does not really matter what kind of weapon you have. Actually going against a large number of unarmed people Grandpa's old pump action shotgut loaded with some buckshot would probably be more affective.Tenchiro said:
Exactlyfluff said:
It is just like when your a kid and someone tries to give you a crappy nickname. If you don't react it won't stick. Say you hate it and youll be called Bucky or Beaner for the rest of your life.
But in the ultimate playground scenario, they know that they can jab, and jab, and jab forever. They know that if you're ignoring them, you're not going to be able to do it forever...especially in a democracy, which will elect a warhawk eventually under such conditions. And when you do finally fight back, you've acknowledged that they do, in fact, matter. Then you get drawn in to the conflict of attrition that gives them the upper hand. Terrorism generally relies on placing governments in lose/lose situations.fluff said:
"Imperial Hubris" is my latest favorite book.
MD
Westy said:Exactly
It is just like when your a kid and someone tries to give you a crappy nickname. If you don't react it won't stick. Say you hate it and youll be called Bucky or Beaner for the rest of your life.
Of course you just might be one of the first ones to squall, "...why were we not warned," and "...how come the government didn't let us know that there were plots afoot?", when another terrorist attack takes place within the US.
MikeD said:
...I present the current Israel/Palistinian situation.
I agree, also ignoring the root causes of terrorism also will not work. Therefore governments need to be smarter in what they are doing. For example the Israeli government could create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza territories, this would actually remove many of the arguments used to support the Palestinian cause (although I acknowledge not all) and the in-fighting amongst the various factions for power in the new state would definitely reduce terror attacks on Israel.MikeD said:
The US government had massive international support following 9/11 (due to the scale of the attack mainly) and could easily have harnessed it more successfully. The invasion of Afghanistan was generally supported, the invasion of Iraq was a major strategic mistake (in GWOT terms). The US stopped going after terrorists and instead went after a guy they hated.
Had they pushed for the right to create a (possibly UN sanctioned) anti-terror force they may have retained much support and the ability to attack terror directly, but then that's not what the current administration wanted.
Ignoring the root causes of terrorism also will not work.
That's funny, I just half-wrote but never finished (got busy at work) a post about the root causes of terrorism. Yep, I agree, per my virus analogy in an above post.
But I also think that we as Americans could have done a lot more, militarily, than we have done...our halfhearted and noncommital responses to terrorist words and actions in the past decade pretty much set the stage for 9-11, and our military responses since have been ineffective and misguided.
But I also think that we as Americans could have done a lot more, militarily, than we have done...our halfhearted and noncommital responses to terrorist words and actions in the past decade pretty much set the stage for 9-11, and our military responses since have been ineffective and misguided.
To a degree, if the US wishes to have a dominant influence over the world, there is a price to pay and it will sometimes hurt. 9/11 and Iraq are such consequences. That remains true regardless of your view of the morality of it, I guess you need to decide if it's worth the cost.