The U.S , hell most of the world has done little to fight global terrorism.And that has left the doors wide open.They have nothing to fear at this point.Doing nothing has got us where we are today.Everything that is going on now,should have been dealt with 20,30 or more years ago.But since we can't change the past,we have to deal with the future.If we do nothing a lot of innocent people are going to die.And if possible I would like to that prevented.Stop it before it happens.

The IRA were a very local terrorist group.They were not going around the world blowing people up.They were not flying planes into building,boats full of explosives into tankers.They were small time.And the farmers that got off their butts didn't target women and children.They went after the British army.

The BBC just began its news (what a decline - yet still the most respected in the world-why???)
"Did Russia pay too high a price?"
Russia is land, dirt, an area, an entity! It was 140-and-rising innocent civilians and their family, loved ones and friends who paid the price -not some political abstraction.
And then they followed it with "Putin will not deal with terrorists" - Good grief: Britain, America and Russia ( to name but three) have been "dealing with terrorists" for decades, centuries even.
What will it take to change the media?

"The IRA were a very local terrorist group."

er scuse me?
maybe I'm mistaken, see I'm refering to The IRA that runs opperations all over the world, who finances itself partly by setting up training camps for other terrorist orgs such as those your fighting in the middle east.
y'know the IRA that runs guns and drugs through pretty much every country in the world and has massive influence on corporate finance in western countrys such as the US and the UK I had no idea there was a scaled down village version consisting of three local farmers and a donkey.

Well then, please tell me when the IRA attacked outside of Europe? Funny I don't rember any here in the states,or in the middle east,or in Russia.

LOL!! Lupe, I may be wrong, but I think his point is that the IRA was striking at local area, not internationally.
You are correct that they receive money from all over the world, wherever there is an ignorant person of Irish heritage.

The Soviets never tolerated terroristic activity very well; their response to any attempts of terrorism, kidnapping, etc., was to respond in similar manner but with brutal intensity. The Western sense of morality won't allow for that, and Russia is becoming westernized in that respect. No matter what mask he tries to wear now, Gorbachev would have had no problem using the type of force necessary in making the terrorists realize that their action would not be worth the painful Soviet reaction.

Yes T.C you are correct.

and to a lesser extent, imperial Russia was happy to shoot its own at the drop of a shapka!
It's interesting how many of the more recent Russian leaders have emerged from the KGB - Putin included. You can see the training.
Russia has probably become more "televised" than "Westernised" - at present I suspect the masses there would applaud a repeat of what Stalin did with the Chechens - he exiled the whole d*mn lot to Siberia!

Thanks for the link, Estragon. You are correct about the hideous color scheme!
The information certainly leans to the side of the rebels. It would be very easy to lean toward their side if it weren't for the terroristic tendancies. Americans can relate to own's autonomy, but our fight was military against military, ours being inferior, and left the end course in God's hands.

Originally posted by Lupe_101
er, Ultra us poor ignorant EU peeps have lived with terrorist attacks on our soil for over 50 years.
this is your first real experience of it, that's why we can sort of forgive you for acting in such a naive Juvenile way about it, but please don't imagine for one second that our reticence concerning the methods you propose to use in this war has anything to do with not having been attacked ourselves.
It is because we have lived with and dealt with terrorists and, to a certain extent, succeeded in dealing with their threat that we feel obliged to point out the "kill 'em all" method simply doesn't work.

Well Lupe_101 ( are you the " old "Lupe ? ), I think you don't know it, but I know what's a terrorists.

In the eighties, in Belgium, we had the " C.C.C ", Cellules Communistes Combatantes. They did many terrorists acts in Belgium, and like I was soldier, I had to handle this situation. The same in former West-Germany, when we were in Red Alert, cuz the R.F.A terrorists ( Rotte Fraktion Armee ) were targeting my unit.

I remember my orders also. Officialy, take them alive. Not officialy, well.... " Search & Destroy " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, please, don't tell me what I have to know or not !!! I know exactely what's a terrorist, and I know exactely what I have to do with him !

I don't have to receive any advices from a guy who have never ( probably ) holded a gun on his hands. Who have never been under " Red Alert ", who don't know what does it mean " survival skills " , " fighting for his live "..etc...etc...

And I wasn't a kind of "John J Rambo ", ready to kill everybody. I was just an 18 years old boy who had a job to do, and who did it !!!

Have a nice day.

P.S : I miss my F.A.L ( 600 shots/minutes, 7.62mm [caliber 0.30 ] , clips 20 or 30 shots ) The best !!!

is often appropriate, TC - I can feel some sympathy for the Chechens as a people; although I'm English I could find some sympathy for the Northern Irish Catholics as far as their civil rights were concerned- 20 years ago anyway. I'd probably have had some sympathy for the Germans after the Treaty of Versailles.
But some sympathy towards the cause does not mean sympathy towards either he end or the means. The best way to achieve greater civil rights for NI Catholics was not to make a million plus NI Protestants a minority in an enlarged Eire (that's why Eire didn't want Ulster) and the best means of achieving greater civil rights is not to blow teenagers up in a Birmingham (UK) pub.
WE must always be on guard where our sympathies are concerned -failure to distinguish sharply is what feeds the media.

Originally posted by Estragon
WE must always be on guard where our sympathies are concerned -failure to distinguish sharply is what feeds the media.

True, indeed. Hence:
The notion of Moscow as victim in this conflict is strange. To review the history briefly: The Chechens were forced into the Russian empire in 1862, after 45 years of bloody resistance. They were granted independence in 1918, but in 1920 the Soviet Union invaded the country again and brutally suppressed periodic revolts. In 1944 Joseph Stalin applied a Stalinist solution to the Chechnya problem. He deported most of its inhabitants to Central Asia -- more than a half-million -- and burned their villages to the ground. (Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, allowed the survivors to return to their lands in the late 1950s.) In 1990, as the Soviet Union was breaking up, a national conference of all Chechen political groups declared independence. Russia refused to recognize it and in 1994 launched the first Chechen war. After two bloody years Moscow was unable to win and signed a peace treaty with the Chechens. In 1999 Russia reinvaded Chechnya, and since then it has had 100,000 troops in this republic, the size of Vermont.
If terror against civilians is the yardstick, what does one call the actions of the Russian army in Chechnya? Over the course of the past decade, it has killed an estimated 100,000 civilians -- almost 10 percent of the prewar population -- displaced more than 200,000 and turned more than a quarter of the tiny republic into an ecological wasteland.
You're right, the Russians aren't guilty of Terrorism in Chechnya; sounds like Genocide to me, no?

You are all vulgar and arrogant.

In the past, before blowing up a theater of 600 civilians became a groovy thing to do, the "rebels" would form an army and fight...man to man until they felt their cause wasn't worth it, or until they won, or the other option...death.

In 1861 the south had NO way in hell of defeating the Union, they knew this, they knew that all they could do was beat the Union in battles, and hope for a peace, and recognition...they did not cease theaters and schools and blow them up when the war turned "south" (notice the pun )

Same goes for the civil war in England during the 1640s, when Cromwell showed signs of victory, and established his protectorate, members of the royal family didn't run around blowing up farm houses. They admitted defeate.

If the chechnyans can't die for their cause in a fight amongs soldiers then they don't deserve their freedoms. All of Chechnya should be put to the flame for their Cowardess.

No people has the right to by pass armies to instead blow up civilians, that is cowardice, an offense punishable by death in all nations...and in some cultures one that is sever enough to demand suicide.

Damn you for twisting the facts...nothing can support what the Chechyan's have resolved to...they don't deserve freedom anymore then life.

Sincerely,
no signature

(This hurts) I have to agree with F-M 100% on his view of this situation.
However, I don't believe anybody said they condone the faux-pas commited by the Chechens at the theater.

B-T's synopsis of the history (assuming he is more correct with the history of Chechnya than he is with U.S. history ) would indicate they are in the right all the way, and if they were to fight a noble fight, there's no telling the support they'd get. And, if they didn't get it, their demise would be on our heads.

TC, my statement of the south knowing they couldn't "match" Union strength was more of a generalization yes...BUT there were Confederate generals who even from the beginning felt that they could only win through a war of attrition, which at that time was Appalling, and the Confederate peoples wouldn't go for that at all.

So instead of fighting by ambushes the South went toe to toe and actually did kick ass, but the Union won simply because they had more men with a constant supply of ammo...

...Comparing that to chechnya would be most accurate, the chechyans KNOW they are out gunned, but unlike the south, at least some of them...decide they want to win rather then have honor and dignity...

There are such things as poor winners, it's like a game with no referees where the other team decides they'll just shoot the other players to win....how demeaning.

Sincerely,
no signature

PS. This is one of my MAJOR reasons for the decline in civilization, and I blame it souly on Guns...at least with Swords it took skill, which kept things honorable and civilized. But todays weapons...you'd have to be insane NOT to be the one behind the rock. And still mortars can get you there, and if you're in a bunker, they'll just hit you with a bunker buster I think the time for Machines to replace man on the battlefeild has come.

LOL Shapka...it's ÿýÔÍý meaning cap

Sincerely,
no signature

I love guns, and am a good shot. But having said that, I see your point (of the sword ) and am romantic for the days of yore, too.

Guns.......to quote Bill Hicks

UK, Guns are illegal, 14 deaths a year.
US where we love our guns, 28,000 deaths a year
AND THERES NO FRIGGIN CONNECTION!?!?!

Originally posted by Lupe_101
Guns.......to quote Bill Hicks

UK, Guns are illegal, 14 deaths a year.
US where we love our guns, 28,000 deaths a year
AND THERES NO FRIGGIN CONNECTION!?!?!

Manipulation !!!!

UK pop : 60/ 70 millions peoples.

USA pop : 280 millions peoples.

So, the US rate death by gun is 7000 and not 28.000 if you compare with the UK.

And do not forget criminals killed by law officers and others statistics. I'm pretty sure that the rate will go more down.

In Belgium ( 10 millions peoples ), almost 25% of the peoples are guns owners ( 2.5 millions guns by minimum ), and we have " only " 7/8 deaths per years with guns.

Anyway, you're english, not american. And if the US citizens want to have guns at home, it's not your problem. It's THEIR problem !

You are pro-choice when peoples chose YOUR choices and not another one. Right ?