Russian Forces Enter Theatre, End Hostage Situation

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sonic
As I noted in previous post, they still weren't killing people on regular basis. That means probably everything would have been peacefully settled with much less victims. In all other cases before Chechen terrorists also said they are going to die, but later, when food lack came into case, etc. They all agreed to surrend on much less demands. Probably these terrorists would have also surrendered only for letting them free and some amount iof money later, when they would have seen that it is not possible to get troops removed from Chechnya.

Let them go free and give them money? You have to be ****ting me?

Run do not walk to your nearest medical facility and have MRI administered ASAP. I fear you are leaking brain matter from one or more HOLES IN YOUR HEAD.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sonic
As I noted in previous post, they still weren't killing people on regular basis. That means probably everything would have been peacefully settled with much less victims. In all other cases before Chechen terrorists also said they are going to die, but later, when food lack came into case, etc. They all agreed to surrend on much less demands. Probably these terrorists would have also surrendered only for letting them free and some amount iof money later, when they would have seen that it is not possible to get troops removed from Chechnya.

Can you define exactly how regularly it is necessary to kill hostages to warrant action being taken?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sonic
As I noted in previous post, they still weren't killing people on regular basis. That means probably everything would have been peacefully settled with much less victims.

Peacefully... THEY WERE KILLING PEOPLE ALREADY.

I can't believe you like this argument so much that you have now posted it twice. Please explain how peacefully and KILLING PEOPLE go together.

And we should trust these bozo's because you "feel in your gut" that they are "probably " peaceful, and will only kill "as many people as they need to"...



WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ming

JT's DL

[Ming]

Hey... I abused him the first time he posted this "interesting" opinon... so JT must be my DL

So let's continue along his warped logic... OK, Russia should have Paid them off so less people "might" have died... and this would have been sending a message that all you have to do is grab a few a people, kill a few of them, ask for money, and then they will give it to you and let you go so you don't kill more people...



Great reasoning there Sonic...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
what if the gas used turns out to be some internationally banned chemical agent? you still support them then?

It's the proverbial "between the devil and the deep blue sea" situation.

The hostages and the terrorists had been in there for some time. Tempers were flaring. Nerves were flaying. Some time soon some thing would bound to happen that would trigger a chain reaction. If nothing else, the terrorists would start murdering the hostages.

I just read something this morning. A news items said the storming was triggered by a kid throwing a bottle at a terrorist and running away. In response, the terrorist opened fire, which led to the special forces to believe that they started killing.

[JCG]

The mere fact that we can see clear ties between these people and the concepts "ready explosives", "suicide operation", "radical islam" and "desperate terrorism" make any expectations of their having any degree of serious rationality or reason very very low, y'know?

[Promethus]

What unfolded in the theater appears to have amounted to a risky test of a previously undisclosed chemical agent that ended with disastrously unintended consequences.

Andrei P. Seltovsky, the chairman of the health committee, said tonight that he did not even know the name of the gas, parrying questions toward what he called the "competent authorities," strongly suggesting that the gas was developed by the military or security forces as part of some secret program.

More than a day and a half after the raid, officials refused either to confirm that or to identify the gas, rebuffing even a direct request from the United States Embassy. Experts in Russia and the United States said that its use — and the official silence enveloping it — were raising troubling questions about Russia's compliance with the international treaty banning chemical weapons.

Lev A. Fyodorov, who once worked in the Soviet chemical weapons agency and is now the president of the Social and Ecological Union for Chemical Safety, said the gas appeared to be a Valium-based agent developed for the military during the Soviet era, and still a state secret.

Vil S. Mirzayanov, a former colleague of Mr. Fyodorov's at the chemical weapons agency who was twice imprisoned for reporting in 1991 that the Soviet Union had continued to develop and test chemical weapons after publicly denouncing them, said that in 1988 the agency had altered the molecular structure of an incapacitating agent, BZ, which the United States studied extensively in the 1960's.

From NYT

[Promethus]

The health officials said the stress of 57 hours of captivity, along with hunger and poor sanitary conditions, compounded the effects. Echoing the statements of doctors who treated the victims, Mr. Fyodorov said the deaths appeared to result directly from poisoning from overexposure, with symptoms including breathing disorders, loss of blood pressure and shock to the heart, liver and kidneys.

"This weapon was developed to be used on healthy men who serve in the army," he said, explaining why so many died. "It was used here on some of the so-called risk groups — women, children, people with liver and kidney problems."

Amy E. Smithson, an expert in chemical weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an arms research organization in Washington, said the official explanations of the gas left many unanswered questions about Russia's compliance with the treaty, including whether the military had developed the gas and the method in which it was used.

"This is kind of like pornography: you know it when you see it," she said of the gray areas in the treaty. "There are going to be people on both sides who will argue that the treaty does not prohibit it. But how it was used, I think, is going to make it a huge debate."

From NYT

[notyoueither]

I'm surprised so few hostages are dead. I couldn't figure how the Russians could possibly incapacitate the hostage takers quickly enough to avoid a blood bath. There were 50 hostage takers. Many of them with bombs and deployed among the hostages. That is a lot to take out.

The fact that they used chemical agents is explanation enough. And no, they should not have used some mild versions. That would be worse than storming with bullets and bayonets.

If the hostage takers had time to realise what was up... BOOM!

Yes, this end justifies these means.

Who wants to comment on the fact that the use of certain agents is banned in international settings. How the Russians deal with terrorists taking 100s of hostages in Moscow is not really my business. Nor yours *Saint?* Marcus.

[Hurricane]

This whole operation is starting to stink. 120 victims is a lot of people, especially when you consider the fact that almost none of these were killed by the terrorists. To me it looks like the authorities panicked, and in a very typical Soviet manner now are trying to cover up their mistakes. It also comes as no surprise that the Russians conveniently killed each and every one of the hostage takers - this way there is no risk of hearing the other side's story.

[Ming]

If everybody had died because the terrorists had blown up the building, people would be giving the Rusians grief for allowing it to happen. It was a lose lose situation. You can't give in to terrorists, because it would just happen more often if you did. They had to do something... and they did. A lot of lives were saved, and none of us can really say if this was the best outcome or not. It's real easy to have an opinion after the fact.

[notyoueither]

Is there a gass whose description includes 'knocks them out before they have a chance to do anything about it, but guaranteed non-lethal?'

[Urban Ranger]

It was a touch and go situation with a hair trigger. The terrorists could push the button at any time and kill a hell a lot more people. If the Russians had some gas that worked just as well but a lot less lethal would be ideal. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, and the special forces had to make do with what they had.

[Urban Ranger]

Another thing I have been wondering is, even if the Russians caved in to the terrorist demands, what gaurantees them won't blow up the theatre anyway? None. Nothing.