Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I really don't think that Russia is able to back up Putnin's threats. They may be able to attack neighboring nations, like Georgia, but they don't have the capability to reach out far beyond their borders like the US does. Furthermore they're not known for their precision strikes. If Russia decided to try something like Afghanistan or Iraq it would launch a WW2 like attack. Absolutely nothing would be left of the target.

Assasinations? I thought they withdrew all of the old KGB cells.

Britain should make Zakayev a birthday present to Putnin.

I dunno. Even Cuba was able to stir up quite a lot of trouble in SW africa and for all the apparent decline of Russian military capability I'd imagine their conventional abilities still vastly outsrip the best that Castro has ever had to offer.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I really don't think that Russia is able to back up Putnin's threats. They may be able to attack neighboring nations, like Georgia, but they don't have the capability to reach out far beyond their borders like the US does. Furthermore they're not known for their precision strikes. If Russia decided to try something like Afghanistan or Iraq it would launch a WW2 like attack. Absolutely nothing would be left of the target.

Assasinations? I thought they withdrew all of the old KGB cells.

Britain should make Zakayev a birthday present to Putnin.

Russia's style is blowing everything up. Not precision strikes. That's too American.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I really don't think that Russia is able to back up Putnin's threats. They may be able to attack neighboring nations, like Georgia, but they don't have the capability to reach out far beyond their borders like the US does. Furthermore they're not known for their precision strikes. If Russia decided to try something like Afghanistan or Iraq it would launch a WW2 like attack. Absolutely nothing would be left of the target.

Assasinations? I thought they withdrew all of the old KGB cells.

Britain should make Zakayev a birthday present to Putnin.

militarily they can't do much. But they should be able to do some assassinations. Is the KGB still around? They need them right about now.

[Agathon]

I dunno. Even Cuba was able to stir up quite a lot of trouble in SW africa

You mean, help decent people fight against a racist foreign government, of course...

[Spiffor]

to Putin. This is indeed a threat against every country in the world, as it gives Russia a nice excuse to bbully or invade whomever they want.

"Pre-emptive strikes" my arse. This will be used in a strategy of imperialism and militarism Putin already knows too well

[Dis]

can't be any worse than Bush can he?

[Spiffor]

Of course he can.

During its own Splendid Little War, Russia utterly razed to the ground one of its own cities (Groznyi), and I've heard from DD they used the equivalent of a nuke in regular bombs.

Bush has never been guilty of such butchering.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
to Putin. This is indeed a threat against every country in the world, as it gives Russia a nice excuse to bbully or invade whomever they want.

"Pre-emptive strikes" my arse. This will be used in a strategy of imperialism and militarism Putin already knows too well

Booohooo.. aren't you from France? No wonder why you are doing this. You want to rather "talk" with terrorists. Maybe they will hit you hard and you will realize how wrong you are. Pre-emptive strikes are very proper. You just speak out of your arse. You have that ignorant mindset of so many eurocoms.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I really don't think that Russia is able to back up Putnin's threats. They may be able to attack neighboring nations, like Georgia, but they don't have the capability to reach out far beyond their borders like the US does. Furthermore they're not known for their precision strikes. If Russia decided to try something like Afghanistan or Iraq it would launch a WW2 like attack. Absolutely nothing would be left of the target.

Even with precision weapons, we don't have a bomb that will only kill bad people. At the end of the day it is up to Islam to route these guys out, and if they can not or will not then indiscriminate and total force is the only option left.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Booohooo.. aren't you from France? No wonder why you are doing this. You want to rather "talk" with terrorists.

It is indeed a common conception here that force cannot root out terrorism, and that the actual causes of terrorist engagement must be solved. "Talk", just like "Force" may be a way to solve a particular terrorist crisis (in our fair share of terror attacks, we used both ways on a pragmatic, and rather efficient basis)

Maybe they will hit you hard and you will realize how wrong you are.

Maybe one day they'll hit us hard. It wouldn't prove that anybody is "right" or "wrong" though, because we wouldn't know the precise motives of the terrorists. That's the thing with human behaviour: it's very hard to predict it, and it's very hard to gloat "the factor I used in predicting is better than yours".

Pre-emptive strikes are very proper.

Yeah. Just like it was very proper to semi-nuke Groznyi. It sure prevented Chechen terrorism all right

[Agathon]

Bush has never been guilty of such butchering.

Yeah - to his regret.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If other countries are granting political asylum to the terrorists Russia has been trying to get extradited then I think assasinations even in western countires against those terrorists might be their best option.

Geronimo, I should think your beliefs about governments not infringing on people's rights would lead you to condemn assassination, unless the victim had already been tried and convicted of a capital crime. What do you think about the U.S. government assassinating people without trial?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is indeed a common conception here that force cannot root out terrorism, and that the actual causes of terrorist engagement must be solved. "Talk", just like "Force" may be a way to solve a particular terrorist crisis (in our fair share of terror attacks, we used both ways on a pragmatic, and rather efficient basis)

Maybe they will hit you hard and you will realize how wrong you are.

Maybe one day they'll hit us hard. It wouldn't prove that anybody is "right" or "wrong" though, because we wouldn't know the precise motives of the terrorists. That's the thing with human behaviour: it's very hard to predict it, and it's very hard to gloat "the factor I used in predicting is better than yours".


Yeah. Just like it was very proper to semi-nuke Groznyi. It sure prevented Chechen terrorism all right

French commies.. always want to be all dovey and crap. Just wait until you have a thousand hostages taken. You will cry and whine to me about how you were so wrong.

Force is always the answer.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah - to his regret.

Nope. Bush knows he would have suffered from extremely intense criticism if he butchered Iraqis the same way Putin butchered Chechens.

Heck, Abu Ghraib is a walk in the park compared to what Russia regularly does, yet it was a worldwide scandal for two weeks. Had Bush permitted such butchering in Iraq, even many of his zealots would have turned against him.

[Sprayber]

After reading about this, I can now kind of see why the rest of the world was concerned about the US making these statements. Killing terrorist is a great thing as far as I'm concerned but this has the potential to inflame so much more violence. All I can hope for is Russian leaders think long and hard before they do something. Somehow I'm not too confident that they will..