Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 39 of 66 pages
Huh? The papers are reporting that they're Muslims. It's right in the NY Times lead story.
I thought those deaths were caused moreso by the Russian SWAT team that was a little overzealous. Although obviously the Chechnyans 'started' it by taking a theatre hostage.
Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish.
We don't actually know yet they have a cause, althought they obviously could.
Yeah..I was thinking, "They robbed a store? And carjacked a guy but didn't kill him? These are some shitty terrorists. They're like the Thelma and Louise of terrorists."
So the entire city is on lockdown? Surely that isn't mandatory. He's not The Running Man ffs.
It's actually more interesting than that. The Russians pumped an unknown chemical agent into the theater's ventilation system in order to incapacitate the hostage-takers. It worked, but a large number of the hostages died as a result of a negative reaction to the gas. There was also some controversy because the Russians refused to tell the hospitals treating the hostages what gas they had used (making it hard to treat them effectively), and it's likely that some hostages died who might otherwise have been saved if more information had been available.
There are lots of people who are intellectually gifted but relatively helpless when it comes to practical judgment or real-world logistics.
In recent years, however, the Kremlin and its regional proxies have been battling a different kind of enemy. This new generation of insurgents has an explicitly Islamist goal: to create a radical pan-Caucasian emirate ruled by Islamist law, a sort of Afghanistan under the Taliban. The movement’s leader, Doku Umarov, unveiled this ambitious vision in 2007. He vowed to liberate not only Russia’s Muslim North Caucausus but a large chunk of European Russia.
Umarov also suggested that devout Muslims should think internationally. His comments, later softened, said: “Today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Palestine our brothers are fighting. Everyone who attacks Muslims wherever they are are our enemies, common enemies. Our enemy is not Russia only, but everyone who wages war against Islam and Muslims.”
This call to global jihad may perhaps offer a possible motive for an attack inside the US. The new generation of twenty-something rebels is also exploiting a powerful new weapon: the internet. The main Chechen rebel website, kavkazcenter.com, posts reports from the jihadi movement worldwide: from Syria, where Chechen diaspora fighters are battling government forces in Aleppo, from Pakistan, and from Turkey
So when is someone going to propose that they bring in Batman to deal with this Dzhokhar?
Yeah, I was going to point this out. The Russians killed the folks in that theater.
I don't know if a live feed has been previously linked, but here's one that seems pretty good.
"President in the situation room, monitoring the situation." Seems like the most appropriate place for him to do so.
To be fair, I think it's extremely likely that in the event of a conventional SWAT-style breach of the theater, the Chechens would have shot as many of the hostages as possible. So it's theoretically possible that gassing the theater was the least-bad of a bad set of options (although personally I'm skeptical of that).
Either way, refusing to aid the treatment of the gassed hostages seems pretty reprehensible.
3866 - i concur. grenades don't have fuses.
But it's never justified to kill innocent civilians.
I agree that just doing nothing wasn't really an option.
3893: internal fuses though, right?
That's a very complicated calculation. How dangerous are the terrorists?
(i.e. I don't count Bin Laden's wives as innocents)?
Yes. But there's nothing to prevent you saying roughly, "We're going after Bin Laden. Anybody who gets in our way is presumed hostile."
Stay with Bin Laden.
Direct, intentional killing of innocent civilians is never justified.
So at what point do they tell people, "Resume your lives". Tomorrow?
Residents have been told to reactivate theyah wikkid accents.
You associate with known terrorists, you lose your right to be deemed an innocent civilian.
This is the moral calculus the entire world has come up with through centuries of thought and negotiation on the rules of war.
Should the Allies have refrained from bombing Berchtesgaden because Eva Braun was hanging around?
Unclear. But, you can't refrain from action for fear of killing them. You'd just give every terrorist who has a wife safe haven, even if the wife is just as big an extremist.
Is your position that terrorists enjoy blanket immunity as long as they can hide near some civilians?
The WTC could not be deemed a military target under any plausible scenario. The goal there was to maximize civilian deaths.
Having a narrowly defined meaning for "bright" or "smart" which only refers to academic testing is absurd.
Why not? What did they do that makes them not innocent?
He'd have to be a complete idiot to allow himself to be taken alive
I have a real problem trying to get inside the head of a guy like this
So, you're saying the WTC was a military target?
The goal there was to maximize civilian deaths.
I don't think this was possible. We needed to topple the Taliban; but that was done quickly and cheaply
You make some awfully confident bullshitty assertions, snap.
My position is that such actions will produce more "terrorists" than they'll kill, because killing innocent civilians to maybe possibly save some American lives someday might not be interpreted by the families and countrymen of the murdered and maimed as morally just.
So, how do you propose to deal with terrorists that attack the US or US nationals overseas?
We needed to topple the Taliban
What other goal could possibly be achieved by flying airliners, fully laden with fuel, into office building containing 10,000+ civilians, at the time of day you could expect them to be most full?
I thought you were making a moral argument, not a utilitarian one.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.8517 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed