For those Involved in the School Siege in Russia

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I think Russia should respond to these acts of terror by attacking Sudan.

[cO.gabe]

So your suggesting the agressive approach is diminishing terrorism? Ahh, perhaps you can explain to me why soldiers and civilians are being killed in iraq every day by islamic insurgents and iraqi resistance to the Invasion by US and British troops?

I'm not defending Bush's actions, only saying that agressive action was, in my opinion, the right path to take after the 9/11 attacks.  Our government, in this case, took action against a group of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

So the Russian persecution of Chechens has helped prevent Terrorist attacks? Did you notice the school siege?

What I am saying is that perhaps thee different terrorist attacks had already been prevented by the Russian government.  For all we know, there could have been additional attacks if no action were taken against Chechen rebels in the past.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Gabe, there was more terrorism in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001. Terrorism is increasing. Additionally, none of the three specific areas I highlighted have calmed down which is what you would expect if progress was happening.

Rebel, ignoring the bullshit opinion of yours that Kerry will somehow just pull away all forces and cower inside the US, I know Bush is going about things the wrong way so even if Kerry's isn't the perfect approach, it is better than Bush's. I wish there was a third party I could vote for that had a chance that would do the exact right thing.

Then again, I don't vote on this issue alone, there are other issues this election. For one, I could not live with myself if I voted for a party that plans to discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality. That would be like voting for a party that gives a blind eye to slavery. The Republican Party is so far off on so many issues (they are the fourth closest match to me of the two major and top two minor parties...fifth if you include Nader as Reform Party.) But Bush loves people to think that the "war" on terror is the only issue that matters because for whatever reason, a lot of Americans seem to think he is strong on that point.

[seth]

I think Russia should respond to these acts of terror by attacking Sudan.

lol

[BFG]

I think Russia should respond to these acts of terror by attacking Sudan.

Well if they listen to the US and then look at US and british 'intellegence'..... heaven forbid

[Cossack]

You people should look at the Georgian situation. We could attack them on account of Georgian President Shakashvili attacking foreign tourist boats inbound to Sochi with his "navy". The whole Caucuses is a hotbed waiting to flare up.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Chechen Separatists Say ?Third Force? Behind Terrorist Attacks

MosNews | September 4 2004

Akhmed Zakayev, a special envoy to Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov has said that ?a third force that brought Russian President Vladimir Putin to power? is behind all the terrorist attacks committed in Russia over the past two weeks. London-based Zakayev said this in an exclusive interview with the Caucasus Times newspaper, printed in Prague, Czech Republic.

Zakayev said that ?Chechen resistance forces led by Ichkeria President Aslan Maskhadov have nothing to do with the hostage crisis in North Ossetia?. He called the events a sad fact and condemned actions against Russian children and civilians.

Zakayev believes that the twin aircraft crash last week, the blast near Rizhskaya metro station on 31 August and today?s events in North Ossetia are links in the same chain and that ?the same power that wants to destabilize the situation in the North Caucasus region? is behind them.

A militant Muslim group called the Islambouli Brigades earlier claimed responsibility for downing two passenger plains and for the bomb blast in Moscow. The legitimacy of the group and the authenticity of such statements have not been verified.

<enter conspiracy theory here>

[BFG]

From the Guardian, a British Broadsheet taken today, some very interesting words:

Muslim leaders condemn killers:

Islamic leaders in the middle east yesterday denounced the slaughter of children in russia as 'unislmaic', as commentators asked unususally soulsearching questions about hte region and terrorism.
Even the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypts biggest islamic group, condemned the bloody siege in Beslan. Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings mayb e justified but killings are not. He added: 'What happened is not jihad becuae Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away.'
While some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East have long suported fellow muslims fighting in Chechnya, such was the barbarity of the hostage takers that few voices spoke in support of the actions in Ossetia. Egypt's leading Muslim cleric, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, was quoted as saying during a friday sermon: "what is the guilt of those children? why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government? You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kiddnappings are criminals, not Muslims".
Ali Abdullah, and Islamic scholar in Behrain who follows the ultra-conservative Salafi stream of Islam, also condemned the shcool attack as 'unIslamic'. However he insisted Muslims were not involved and revived an old conspiracy theory: 'I have no doubt that this is the workd of the Israelis, who want to tarnish the image of the muslims'.
But the reaction was overwhelmingly fulled with revulsion. Abdulrahman al-Rashed wrote an article in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat news paper under the headline: "The painful truth: all world terrorists are Muslims!"
Al-Rashed said that mulims will not be able to cleanse their image unless "we admit thae scandalous facts.... Our terrorist sons are and end-product of our corrupted culture. THe picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us."
His extraordinary critique was echoed by an egyption islamist. Writing in the pro-government newspaper, Al ahram, he said hostage takers in russia and Iraq are only harming islam. "If all the enemies of islam united and decided to harm it... they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations and misuderstandings.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Akhmed Zakayev, a special envoy to Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov has said that ?a third force that brought Russian President Vladimir Putin to power? is behind all the terrorist attacks committed in Russia over the past two weeks.

So this is suggesting that Putin essentially was behind the whole thing in order to cause fear to the country and rally support behind him in battling terrorism in Chechnia? Basically what the Bush Administration does with terror alerts but with real action and a body count? Personally, as problematic as Putin may be, I could not imagine any leader of a free nation, not even Bush, stooping to something as horrible.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Personally, as problematic as Putin may be, I could not imagine any leader of a free nation, not even Bush, stooping to something as horrible.

I could.

[Cossack]

You trying to say we are a free nation? Heheheheheh, most entertaining. The point is this, who is this third force? Heaven forbid a known enemy of Putin (Maskhadov) would tell such a blatant lie. I would look into his claim more if he provided more details, but he just cites a "third force." Putin does not need to stage such an attack to boost his approval, he already controls the media and has an eighty percent approval rating based off the March elections.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Well, allegedly Russia is a democracy so I say it is free. Whether that is actually accurate is not for me to determine. You would obviously know better than I Cossack.

I mean at some point it is difficult to draw a line on what is free and what isn't. Complete freedom is either anarchy or libertarianism...the US isn't either. It is murkier at the other end. Is democracy the key factor...is free media? (actually, the US media is questionably free if you really look at it, which isn't to say speech)

But I digress...

[Abe 2.0]

Ok...first off, if you actually believe that this massacre was somehow the result of some conspiracy, you should go see a doctor. Having your head that far up your ass can't be good for your health. This was the worst-case scenario for russia's security forces and for the kremlin, as it makes them look ineffective in fighting the terrorists. There is nothing good or convenient about this for Putin. On the contrary, he will probably be forced to change his strategy and start negotiating with some of the less radical chechens. But then again, no 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon and the CIA and Mossad are probably responsible for 9/11.....don't believe the hype.
The aggressive approach against terrorism that Israel has taken has actually decreased the number of terrorist attacks there considerably. Assasinating Hamas leaders, incursions into gaza and west bank towns and the security barrier seem to be paying off. THe suicide attack last week happened in beersheba, which is in the southern part of israel, where the security barrier consists more of barbed wire, motion sensors and patrols, so it seems to indicate that "the wall" that everyone likes to bitch about is actually pretty effective.
As for terror aimed at the US, do you people think there would have been LESS terrorsim if the US hadent bombed the taliban and gone after alquaida's HQ in afghanistan? Maybe if we had negotiated with the terrorists like bondo suggests, they would have simply packed up and gone back to the shitholes they crawled out from? Better PR might have been a good thing, i agree, but the only way to deal with terrorsim is to capture and kill terrorists.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Speaking of having your head up your ass... Abe, by all means, give us a quote where Bondo advocated negotiating with terrorists. If I remember aright, he advocated killing the shit out of them, but doing so in a manner which did not piss off their neighbors and countrymen and thus avoided breeding more hatred and terrorists.

      I believe the phrase "more bang for the buck" applies here.

[BFG]

but the only way to deal with terrorsim is to capture and kill terrorists.

... Lets compare it to Arson then. Is it better to spend all your efforts capturing and locking up arsonists, or more sensible to spend some of your efforst in the education of likely arsonists so that they see as it were the error of their ways and that setting fires isn't going to solve anything - while at the same time stopping those who attempt to set buildings on fire?

What im getting at is that the bush / israeli / russia against the chechen  appoach is fighting the result of the problem, its the surface - the visible problem. It isn't infact as simple as that, by trying to deal with the surface problem (the actual visible attacks etc) they are in effect putting fuel on the root of the problem - the reasons why people turn to terrorist attacks - the reason why in some cases they feel they have no alternative than to fight, with everything they can even if it means blowing their bodies up.

like i said before, when a firefighter tackles a problem, yes he wants to dowse the flames back a bit, but only so he can get to the source of the fire, to get to the fuel which is creating the flames  

[*DAMN Bondo]

Speaking of having your head up your ass... Abe, by all means, give us a quote where Bondo advocated negotiating with terrorists. If I remember aright, he advocated killing the shit out of them, but doing so in a manner which did not piss off their neighbors and countrymen and thus avoided breeding more hatred and terrorists.

Hehe, thanks for reading my posts Loth, since those who criticize me don't seem to be

I mean, I think it is to my benefit that I don't just condemn the conspiracy talks when they come up, but I do disbelieve them and ask questions of them. It is equally bad I think to either jump to believe a conspiracy or jump to deny it without questioning it. And usually when you question it, you won't believe it. So I don't believe that Pentagon conspiracy in the other thread or the Putin involvement in this thread. I think I was fairly clear on both points even if I wasn't forceful.

But yes, like I've said, I think the answer is focused special force attacks to terrorist groups based on proper human intelligence (which we need to reinvigorate since it has lapsed thanks to both Republicans and Democrats.) I'm not even sure if the US needs a proper invasion army anymore these days, seems we just need a bunch of small special forces groups and then more of a peace keeping rather than war fighting troop core.

[Cossack]

I have to disagree Bondo. I do not mean to pull my college expereince yadda yadda yadda, but I have been looking at the Caucuses and China with special interest as an IR major. The US does need an invasion style Army because with the rise of China an almost imminent, there will be a war with them or something of that sort. Am I saying there will be a war with China now? No. However, the current trends point China towards superpower status. Usually the rise of superpowers happen through wars (US and USSR via WWII, Rome via Punic Wars, Napoleon via Napoleonic Wars).

With this great potential threat across the Pacific, it is imparitive that the United States keep some sort of invasion Army, because terrorism could just be a small little stop on our way to a much larger worldwide conflict. It is very short sighted to advocate the dissolution of any Army. Special Forces are skilled, but you cannot fight front line wars with Special Forces.

As for Putin and terrorists, you people are missing the whole point. You people are advocating two extreames that will not be successful. It is either negotiate with them or kill the living shit out of them. Killing the shit out of them only compounds the problem by breeding more terrorists. Negotiating with them is a good long term solution, but what are you going to do about the angry terrorists that already exist. You need both of them to act in sync. The Israeli solution is short term. Eventually the Palestinians will tear down that wall. True, it thwarts some terrorists. but it divides the Palestinians from their town and markets in Jeruselem. I will not even compare Iraq and Chechnya seeing as how they are two way different situations (although I assume some of you will fail to see that). In short there is and there never will be a black and white solution to the world's problems.

[*DAMN Bondo]

I do feel your assumption that if China and US are both superpowers they must be enemies and fight a war is overreactive to the situation. Though perhaps the US would be the offending party in that conflict? Is there reason to think China has intentions on hostility beyond Taiwan?

I do understand that these situations are vastly different, but the method is the same and it is to the method that I speak. I do think with the army/peacekeeping aspect there is a level of dual training that can be used. I just think the emphasis should shift from invasion to peacekeeping, not that either should be exclusively focused on. If I were actually in charge of things I would by no means favor a hard and fast agendum (plus I'd listen to expert advisors in the area) what I mention here is more about general philosophies that perhaps can be adopted in how we'd prefer to deal with things, making adjustments from that base when handling a situation rather than the base philosophy the Bush Administration works from.

And do speak from your college experience...I am no expert and your voice will help me understand better. Just as I might speak to global warming issues or energy policy based on my college experience.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

So I take it your're voting for Bush Abe?

[Cossack]

I never said who was going to be an aggressor. Unfortunately, I am not Nostradamus. However, if you do look at historical trends you will see that empires usually fight eachother. Conflicts of interest are bound to occur, and radical elements on both sides seem to take hold. This happened with Greece and Persia, Rome and Parthia, Napoleon and Russia, Great Britain, and Prussia, and the US, USSR and the Axis. Wars happen for one reason or another, it is human nature.

Although with the recent 9/11 tragedy and the Iraq quagmire, we live in a relativley peaceful but volatile era. There are no titanic battles or mass exoduses of people. The era that we live in is comperable to the post-Versailles twenties. Economic stagnation was abound and the Central Powers were split into quabbling factions. Many people still thought war had ended after the Great War. The victorious allied powers failed to see the volitility of the times and thus their militaries were neglected and easily destroyed when the German Blitz hit Europe.

Is it overreactive? Maybe, but when one looks at some of these historical trends you tend to take the cautious and less optimistic view.