hostage situation in Russia

We all have seen the news...50 folks with bombs and guns took over a theater with 400 people in it. They want the Russian troops to leave thier province. Say they will start killing if this is not done by Sat morning...about midnight our time (east coast).

Should the Russians give in and withdraw their troops?

What would you want our country to do if this happened in the US and the demand was to withdraw from Iraq?

Any other ideas...could the theater be filled with a sleeping gas?

Ken

We've all seen the news but have we all seen the same news?
Not that its necessarily relevant but the folks with the bombs are all Muslims.
The first set of hostages released were all Muslims.
The quote from the folks with the bombs was along the lines of "we are ready to die and are going to take hundreds of sinners with us."
The purely Political spin that the media is trying to put on this is all very nice but it seems like the same old terrorism to me.

GJW
I don't understand the last sentence of your post. Should the media ignore the politics of it and focus on the fact that Muslims are involved? After all, Muslims can't have legitimate political grievances. Only insane terrorist proclivities. I'm NOT DEFENDING TERRORISM, regardless of who engages in it. But the media SHOULD focus on the politial aspects instead of trying to simplify things into Bushlistic good vs evil based on what religion is involved. Terrorism is terrorism. Politics is politics. Religiosity is religiosity. This is a natural result of the merging of religion and government. Islam or any other. They, (Muslims), have no monopoly on fanaticism.

KenB
I'm not totally informed the background of this situation. But from what I understand these are rebel Chechniens from Georgia. I'm not an advocate of terrorist tactics. But if we were occupying post-Sadam Iraq in order to control their oil and impose a Pax Americana, and these terrorists reflected the wishes of the Iraqi population, then I'd say withdraw. I don't know if that's an analogous situation to what's happening in Russia or not, and if you are relying on the U.S. Corporate Media, you probably don't either.

Originally posted by PeterM:
GJW
I don't understand the last sentence of your post. Should the media ignore the politics of it and focus on the fact that Muslims are involved? After all, Muslims can't have legitimate political grievances. Only insane terrorist proclivities.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The media should call a spade a spade.
They've been called Chechens, freedom-fighters, rebels, captors, martyrs, etc.
But what they are is terrorists and terrorists do not have legitimate political grievances.
They lose that right the minute they strap on the explosives. Doesn't matter what religion they subscribe to.

Originally posted by PeterM:
But the media SHOULD focus on the politial aspects instead of trying to simplify things into Bushlistic good vs evil based on what religion is involved.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I completely disagree.
The situation is unwarranted and undefendable.
To offer it the slightest degree of legitimacy is downright dangerous.
They blow up a theatre to make their "political" statement. What does the next group have to blow up?

Originally posted by PeterM:
Terrorism is terrorism. Politics is politics. Religiosity is religiosity.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yup.
And you need to be able to tell the difference.

Originally posted by PeterM:
This is a natural result of the merging of religion and government. Islam or any other.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Which is why no "civilized" country is trying to merge the two.
Besides the Islamic states what other countries are demanding a "pure" society uninfected by outsiders or infidels?

You can take the religion out of politics, but you can't take the politics out of religion. ANY religious group wants to take over. For that matter, I don't think you can take the terrorism out of religion, either. Christianity has mostly calmed down - people aren't killed nearly as much in the name of christ as before, but it still happens. The sand people are just a little slower to calm down.

The long term solution is to educate people to the point where they loose this security blanket "God" thing. The short term solution is just behaviour modification - you can't negotiate with terrorists, or you'll just have more terrorism. For any hostage situation, the correct choice has been known for years: Keep them talking until they're bored to death and give up, or until they start killing hostages, at which point you go in with force. Almost always, you can wait them out, unless they're some kind of head case group. Usually, when they're some kind of head case group it's religious.

Originally posted by Albany Tom:
...The sand people are just a little slower to calm down. ...

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I love it. "sand people" Nice euphemism there, Tom.

e-

That's strange:

Here is Australia, it was reported that 34 rebels took over a theatre of 700 hostages.

With the resultant loss of 67 hostages when Russian troops stormed in. I can imagine the public outcry if it were in America: those 67 families suing law enforcement agencies for millions of dollars for pain, suffering and what it is 'punitive damages'?!

That they had that kind of gas ready, indicates the Russians had planned for something like this. Can you think what the tally would have been without the gas? I wonder how many died from the gas and how many were shot. 67 dead seems like a small number compaired to what it would have been without the gas.

Originally posted by Onyx:
That's strange:

I can imagine the public outcry if it were in America: those 67 families suing law enforcement agencies for millions of dollars for pain, suffering and what it is 'punitive damages'?!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Despite the images that American's civil liberties stir up in your mind, what do you think the U.S. would have done?

Since you raised the topic though, can you offer the precedence that led to your conclusion?

Rabid fanaticism is growing faster in Islam than anywhere else. We have the same sort of rabid fanatics in Christianity, but, they are currently restrained by respect for our countries' laws. How long this will last, is anyones guess.

I seem to remember a bunch of people being burned to death in Texas, and not too much concern about it afterword, which I thought was weird especially considering they used a main battle tank. It all depends on your spin doctors...

Originally posted by Empath:
Despite the images that American's civil liberties stir up in your mind, what do you think the U.S. would have done?

Since you raised the topic though, can you offer the precedence that led to your conclusion?

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ok the precedence that led to my conclusion: victim of Columbine suing the family of Klebold and the Harris (have I got the names right?!) claiming ill-parenting or some other garb..., suing the drug company that made whatever pills one or the pair were taking at the time, etc.
Victims of Sept 11 suing the airline/airport claiming millions in compensation. If it had been in US, I don't think the seize would have lasted three days. The various law enforcement agencies in the US would have gathered enough info about the building to storm in and launch a calculated attack at the worse time for the offenders (ie. when they're tired/asleep).

Columbine is probably as good an example as any domestically, but was different in that demands weren't being made for the release of hostages, and it was handled by law enforcement agencies. A better example would be hostage situations that Americans have faced abroad. A similar situation to the Russian hostages would have involved military and federal agencies. In the Columbine suits there were civil liabilities enabling a reasonable lawsuit, plus the belief for awhile that a policeman shot one of the victims, and then tried to cover it up. People directly affected by any action are likely to sue.

Lawsuits by injured parties and their families, though, are a long way from being a "public outcry". In the Columbine case the two major aims were to insure the safety of the those in the school and the apprehension of the criminals. In the Russian situation there was a third element involved. That was to give a clear message to others that might be inclined to use the same methods for political reason that demands made in such a manner will not work.

As for how the U.S. would have handled it? Russia and the U.S. would likely do about the same. Make a judgment call based on the severity, opportunity, and the amount of time available.

In case anyone cares

-------------------------------------------
From the UK Times:

German survivors provide clue to deadly theatre gas
By Daniel McGrory

DOCTORS who are treating two German survivors of the Moscow theatre siege believe that they may have identified the gas used by Russian special forces.
After examining an 18-year-old woman student and a 43-year-old businessman who were knocked out by the powerful drug, experts at a clinic in Munich believe that a narcotic called fentanyl could have killed the 115 hostages.

The drug is often found in powerful pain-killing body patches used by cancer sufferers. It is also sought by heroin addicts as it is an opiate similar to morphine and is very strong in its pure state.

Experts at the Pentagon said yesterday that they also strongly suspected that an opium-based drug had been used, but would not say if American doctors had tested any of the survivors.

Thomas Zilker, a toxicology expert at the specialist German clinic, ruled out a nerve gas, as it would have left traces in the victims' bodies, which he had been unable to find.

I haven't heard anyone complaining about Russian troops killing American citizen(s). Has this been commented on?

Oh, so as long as those innocent theathre goers come hostages weren't American citizens, the loss of their life don't count as much?!

Originally posted by Onyx:
Oh, so as long as those innocent theathre goers come hostages weren't American citizens, the loss of their life don't count as much?!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not my intention to lessen the loss of anyone's life. I was just saying that given the manic relationship the USA and Russia have this situation could have or may yet have repercussions beyond the regretable deaths of any of the hostages, no matter what their nationality.
Despite enjoying my life here I don't feel that American lives are worth more, they do have more impact on me though, and on the actions of the goverment where I reside.

I`m sure the Russians knew there would be loss of life regarding this gas. They needed something that would act instantly...not after a few minutes. Also, I heard that one terrorist had managed to put on a gas mask...didn`t help. Could be they needed a gas that would slip past the filters used in masks but disapate quickly.

They had to make a tough choice. I believe they made a good one...no telling how many would have died had they chose to go in there without the use of this gas.

Perhaps an even better choice would have been to withdraw their troops. It`s all about oil...money is the bottom line. I would be really be down on them for this...but our government tends to act in the same way...hard to point a finger...when we are the same. Also, had they given in to their demands, terrorist around the world would get the message that this concept works.

Ken

Looks like the Germans got it right.
Thr Russians confirmed today that the gas was fentanyl-based.