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

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, colonialism is not the answer. Democracy is.

[LulThyme]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
THEY MUST ASSASSINATE ALL TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE. International boundaries should mean nothing. There should be a joint global defense agency including Russia and the US that specializes in assassinating terrorists (including these Chechnen monsters).

Putin should be praised for this (****, I'm agreeing with Tass).

It would be hard not to be a terrorist yourself if you do this...

[DinoDoc]

I love this thread simply because someone used me as a source of authority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flubber

What's your solution? My idea is simply that a state supporting terrorism against my country makes that country my enemy. In theory you could try to justify unrestricted warfare but I would tend not favor that. I would tend to meet force with force and strike at the nation state that is striking at my country. What would you do ? I'm assuming sanctions etc are already in place and I don't think just taking it is effective either

Contrast Clinton raining bombs down on OBL and Bush taking out the Taliban. You seem to support the Clinton brand of looking tough without being tough.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The blood is on the heads of those countries who are blocking the extradition and providing asylum. This is war. There were trials for the nazis in ww2, but only when the fighting had stopped. If there was a way to kidnap these guys instead of assassinating them, perhaps the the way isreal was sometimes able to do when it would track down ex-nazis, that would be much preferable. But if a trial can not conceivably be arranged then it is better to assasinate the terrorist than to let them go free.

But we don't for the most part know confidently who is a terrorist. If they were American citizens I think you would be fervently defending their right not to be killed by the government without a fair trial. Why is this different?

[Velociryx]

as the saying goes, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

-=Vel=-

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't want Iran with nukes, because Iran has a strong potential for being rules by unpredictable nutcases. If Iran has nukes, the real danger will come from their leaders more than from their terrorists.

But the connection between nukes and the harboring of terrorists is very slim. I don't expect the Iranian government to trust nukes in the hands of terrorists;

I'm sorry, you misunderstood, and I haven't been in all day.

Consider Iran as it is known now, having supported Hezbollah and Hamas, and having a clear hand in using terrorism to disrupt our efforts in Iraq. Iran is already doing this, without having nukes as a way to dissuade retaliatory strikes.

Now consider an Iran with nukes, that can use them to dissuade retaliatory strikes...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by debeest


But we don't for the most part know confidently who is a terrorist. If they were American citizens I think you would be fervently defending their right not to be killed by the government without a fair trial. Why is this different?

no. I'd demand that the government harboring the US citizen extradite them to stand trial in Russia for their crimes. If the extradition would not occur then Russia's only acceptable option is to try to kidnap or assasinate the terrorists (suspect) rather than just being forced to wring their hands while a terrorist seems to walk free. Countries shouldn't provide asylum from other democracies for terrorist suspects and if they do, then the blood of that suspect is on their heads should the victimized country find itself forced to resort to assasination.

sucky situation, but like I said this is war.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, colonialism is not the answer. Democracy is.

You mean like the Islamic Republic of Iran?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Velociryx
as the saying goes, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

Among wargamers, the saying is nuke them 'till they glow, then shoot them in the dark.

[Serb]

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

Yeah, He rebuilds the USSR and already invaded sh!tloads of countries since he was elected.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You mean like the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Cynical, are we not?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

And this particular sh!t based on which source? The f*ckers who take our children hostages and killing them and who now hide in your countries tell you those stories?
Great source of knowledge.
Did you ever see a pictures of Russian soldiers who tortued and humilated their prisoners, like US soldiers did in Abu Ghraib? Did you ever heard about such case in any Russian camp for prisoners. Bring me evidenses, SHOW ME THE PHOTOS GODDAMNIT.
****.

[Ned]

Serb, I'll bet the US and Russia are already talking on ways to cooperate -- much to the consternation of France, given Spiffor's reaction.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
And this particular sh!t based on which source?

Amnesty Intrnational, Human Rights Watch, ect.