Islamic terrorists in Russia - what next

The Coffee Shop
1

First terrorists in Iraq started picking on any civilians they could find and claiming that they were pressuring said civilian’s country of origin to get out of Iraq. Rather than respect the Geneva Accords and follow generally accepted rules of engagement, they choose to target civilians. So they’ve managed to piss of several countries and intimidate the Spaniards into electing a mealy-mouthed, liberal government that tucked it’s tail and ran. Then there’s Russia…

A Russian commentator on radio yesterday made a statement to the effect that Russia doesn’t have the US military might, but they do still have over 10,000 nuclear warheads!! He suggested that in response to Chechen terrorism, they might just choose a response so disproportionate as to dissuade (or destroy) several generations from f-ing with Russia. While I don’t like the nuclear idea, the rest of the scenario sounds like exactly what Israel should do to the Palestinians, and what the US should be doing, instead of fighting a house-to-house skirmish in Iraq.

So what will be the response if Russia goes nuclear?

3

There has been a problem with islamic terrorists in Russia for a lot longer then the US has been having problems with Al Queda. You can look at their situation and see that despite fighting a war against middle eastern insurgents in the 80’s they still have the same problems today (actually worse since the school seige was absolutely terrible). Rather then use nukes wouldn’t it be easier to give Chechyna independence, I know you are going to say nations should use hardline stances against terrorists, but what does Russia need Chechyna for anyway? My guess is if they gave it independence the country would be in a mess soon anyway and would be asking for Russia to help it out.

5

You’re wrong and speak for Americans when it isn’t true to make yourself seem better than the others. Typical Socialist. I think for myself and have chosen based on by beliefs and feelings without cowtowing to others.

American’s have the “bloodlust” you speak of when provoked, for sure. However, Your irrational misrepresentation of what we want is irresponsible. A few terrorists can change the very world we live in in a short period of time at the cost of millions of lives that Americans DID NOT kill. It was by their own countries. Americans have killed many people over the years. Our hands are not clean. Jesus Christ, we admit this fact all the time. Not good enough for you though, right? Socialism, Communism, whatever, is far worse than George Bush EVER will be. Adolf Hitler: Directly responsible for the deaths of over 60 million worldwide as a result of the Second World War, Josef Stalin: Approximately 20 million killed, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political “offences”. At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the ‘Gulag’, Pol Pot: One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country’s population), Saddam Hussein: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or “disappeared”. No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi’ite Muslims killed during Hussein’s reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 100,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi’ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War. The list goes on.

What I want is freedom and liberty without the fear of someone killing me or the people I love in my own country. Your Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Marxist views are your right as an American, but are the path to more American bloodshed in America, not less. So be it, but this American is voting for George Bush because he is the most anti-Socialist candidate we have at the moment as are most Republican candidates.

6

Once again, junior, you’ve interpreted my words to mean what they don’t mean. Nice to know that you’re consistent, even if it is consistently stupid and annoying.

7

“and what is it that Israel should do with Palestinians?”

    • They should make them a promise to kill a minimum of 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in a terror attack. Then the peace-loving Palestinians (if there are any) can deal with their own or evacuate. Once all the terrorist are dead, then peace has a chance. Tit for tat won’t get it done.

"Do you remember that these guys were there before the Bitish gov. gave them the land… "

    • And how is that relevant in 2004. By that logic, we should vacate America and give all the land back to the Indians.

“Do you offer the same solution as with American indians and Aborigenes? Just kill’ em all or put them in reservations?”

    • I can’t fix the past nor is it relevant at present.

“And your idea of fighting for peace is having the US gov. blasting Iraq with nukes?”

    • No, I asked what the world’s response might be if RUSSIA went nuclear.

“what about the iraqis there who are like you and me? trying to work, feed their family, see their children grow up? We blast them?”

    • No, and I haven’t suggested as much. However, we announced at a point in time that we were going to invade Iraq unless certain conditions were met. Next, we should announce that we plan to kill 100 residents of _____ (Ramallah, Falujah, etc.) for every American or coalition soldier or civilian killed by terrorist (insurgent) action. Then the residents can let the terrorists know just to what extent they support the terrorist activities. They can vote with their mouths or their feet. Eventually, these towns will be empty, and those who wish to live in peace can move back in. First we have to get the word out, then (after a reasonable period of warning) act.

“You’re freakin’ nuts mate!”

    • What about my nuts?
8

He’s not nuts.

Try asking Cousin Elwood why he feels the way he feels before making that judgement.

Terrorists are the ones who are nuts, but you call CE nuts? Completly backwards, I say.

I’ll bet Cousin Elwood has never killed anyone. Terrorists, like those in Russia and Iraq kill every day. Why do they kill? What do they want? POWER, through fear.

Give in to terrorism and they win. Let them be, they win. Let them know we’ll defend ourselves and our freinds against them and they may think twice.

Yasser Arafat is the problem with Palestine. Israel will complete their security fence and Palestine will descend in civil war with Arafat’s head on a stick at the hands of the Palestinians. Israel is a productive society. What does the society of Palestine produce besides terrorists? How about North Korea? Cuba? Oh, cigars, sorry. Free market societies don’t need terrorism. They EARN their power through hard work and product. Not by killing.

9

“There has been a problem with islamic terrorists in Russia for a lot longer then the US has been having problems with Al Queda.”

    • I didn’t claim it was new, but it has escalated in recent years with the two major hostage situations.

“Rather then use nukes wouldn’t it be easier to give Chechyna independence”

    • Perhaps, but as a reward for terrorism, NO!!

“I know you are going to say nations should use hardline stances against terrorists, but what does Russia need Chechyna for anyway?”

    • I don’t think that second part is any of my business, at present. And yes, I believe that you should never negotiate, communicate or in any other way encourage terrorists. Just by giving them face time, you encourage them. EVERY SINGLE ACT of terrorism whould have monstrously negative consequences for the perpatrators and anyone who associates or identifies with them.

“My guess is if they gave it independence the country would be in a mess soon anyway and would be asking for Russia to help it out.”

    • I can’t comment, but if that’s the case then giving them independence would be a mistake all the way around.

However, my question was “What will/should the response be if Russia goes nuclear?”

10

“American’s have the ‘bloodlust’ you speak of when provoked, for sure.”

    • I prefer to call it “righteous indignation.”

“What I want is freedom and liberty without the fear of someone killing me or the people I love in my own country.”

    • Doesn’t really sound like you’re asking for much.

“this American is voting for George Bush because he is the most anti-Socialist candidate we have at the moment as are most Republican candidates.”

    • Perhaps, but only marginally.
12

“Yasser Arafat is the problem with Palestine.”

Arafat most likely has very little control over the various groups operating in the name of Palestinian Liberation. He’s obviously a bad guy, but our continued insistence that he stop groups from conducting bombings is comical.

“Free market societies don’t need terrorism.”

Nobody needs terrorism, but if what you mean is that free market societies don’t breed terrorism, I’d suggest you ask the Brits about the IRA, or the Spanish about the Basques, or the Germans about the Bader/Meinhoff Group, or our FBI about the KKK or the Michigan Militia or all the other domestic groups that we have here.

13

I didn’t say they didn’t breed terrorism, I said they don’t need it. Big difference.

However, the only legitimate example you gave are the KKK and they were racists, not power hungry. The rest were created under some form of Socialism.

14

"I didn’t say they didn’t breed terrorism, I said they don’t need it. Big difference. "

Alright, how exactly do socialist countries “need” terrorism?

“However, the only legitimate example you gave are the KKK and they were racists, not power hungry”

What’s the difference? they want power over another race, and they would prefer a govt. that adopts their world view.

“The rest were created under some form of Socialism.”

So nobody but us is a free market society? Not GB or Germany or France, or Spain or any other country? Terrorists grow everywhere, not just socialist or communist countries. Name me a free market country and I’ll find you a terrorist group from that country.

15

Socialism is a form of control/repression. Repression breeds terrorism. The more free a society, the less terrorism you have.

You’re right about the KKK. They did want power over people with a different skin color, however Americans all.

Again you’re right. Terrorism exists everywhere and they want power. As I stated above, the more free a society, the less terrorism is produces.

Just for kicks though, because I’m curious, I’ll throw out the United States and Israel as more free market countries than most. What terror groups have been generated from these countries? I can see a difference between international and domestic terror, so how about international terror groups generated from within the US and Israel that were/are not gov’t entities.

Also, I don’t believe there are ANY truly free market countries in existence. It’s something we’re afraid of.

16

how about international terror groups generated from within the US and Israel that were/are not gov’t entities."

Well, in Israel, there was the Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) as well as the Kach and the Kahane Chai groups. In the U.S. we tend to have more domesticly operating groups, but some of the international ones are the Jewish Defense League and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Unfortunately for us, most of our terrorists are content to kill other Americans instead of heading overseas. Keep in mind that most terrorist groups are domestic in nature, and the US state Dept has only desginated 36 total groups as “Foreign terrorist organizations”.

18

OK, I’m going to break the rule ONCE, but I think I’m making a mistake…

“I am being condescending, yes, but how can I help it when mass slaughter is brought up and not instantly and completely lambasted as pure insanity?”

    • I asked for input. I didn’t support the idea but instead was reporting that it is now “out there.”

“Who provoked it?”

    • September 11, 2001 - ring any bells?

“A man Americans apparently no longer care about, by the name of Osama bin Laden.”

    • Which Americans no longer care about him?

“He provoked it so well that we decided to invade a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with him.”

    • Separate issue. OBL opened the flood gates and raised our national consciousness on the issue of Islamic terrorism and milatarism. Meanwhile, Hussein militantly refused to abide by treaties and SEVENTEEN UN resolutions. With or without OBL, the invasion of Iraq was overdue. Bush performed the duty for which Clinton didn’t have the stomach… (big enough, just not strong enough).

"Or if Americans do care about him, they should probably think twice before electing a man who says is ‘isn’t a priority’ and ‘doesn’t care’ where he is.

    • Bin Ladin is no longer a priority, because his organization has been crushed. We have no reason to care where he is, as long as we know he’s in the middle of BFE somewhere, dying of a kidney disease and unable to get good medical care or even running water.

“A few terrorists can change the very world we live in in a short period of time at the cost of millions of lives that Americans DID NOT kill. It was by their own countries.”
"Could you explain what this means? "

    • I could gues, but since I didn’t write it, I’ll leave to whomever did. Perhaps this if from Tibbs, as is what follows, as far as I can tell. I’ll skip over that part. Tibbs and I are friends here on the forum, but we don’t dress alike, act alike or drink together. We don’t even belong to the same KKK chapter…

“You don’t like the other idea, but you do like the “rest of the scenario”. Ok, what is the rest of the scenario that you presented?”

    • I posted it: Kill 100 for every one of ours. I.e. make sure they come out demonstrably and significantly the worse for EVERY terrorist action. Sooner or later they stop, even if it’s only because they’re all dead.

“He suggested that in response to Chechen terrorism, they might just choose a response so disproportionate as to dissuade (or destroy) several generations from f-ing with Russia.”

    • The “He” here was a Russian commentator speaking of his own ideas of what he thought his country should do.

"You do not think they should use nukes, but they should ‘choose a response so disproportionate as to dissuade (or destroy) several generations from f-ing with Russia.’ "

    • That was the Russian gentleman’s statement, synopsized by me.

“You seem to either be advocating genocide or you should have used the word ‘discourage’ instead of ‘destroy’.”

    • I report, you decide.

“Based on your cowboy mentality, I’d say you meant ‘destroy’ but will now back down to ‘discourage’.”

    • See, you’re attributing to me statements that I didn’t make. This was the Russian gentleman’s statement.

“Though it is proven that you are eager to bluster about violence, I might be wrong.”

    • I’m guessing you were born wrong.

“At worst you are advocating genocide as a proper method of revolution-quashing.”

    • Again, you interpret for me to make statements I didn’t make. Have you always been this stupid? Did you get failing marks for reading comprehension in school?

“At best you are advocating mass slaughter as a proper method of revolution-quashing.”

    • No, I advocate a strong tactical response.

“(Either is terrorism as defined by the US government, by the way.)”

    • What I’m proposing would be called “collateral damage.”

“With that in mind: What, pray tell, would a ‘disproportionate’ response be?”

    • I don’t believe in dispropotionate responses. I just believe that a proportionate response has a very high kill ratio in our favor.

“I would really like for you to answer this question. Pretty please with sugar on top.”

    • Read my response to Francois above, I don’t like repeating myself, especially to someone who isn’t listening.
20

“And yes, I believe that you should never negotiate, communicate or in any other way encourage terrorists. Just by giving them face time, you encourage them. EVERY SINGLE ACT of terrorism whould have monstrously negative consequences for the perpatrators and anyone who associates or identifies with them.”

Not for nothing, but there are plenty of people who think that you can not rule out dealing with terrorists in certain instances. Here’s a list of presidents who have made deals with terrorists.

Ronald Reagan - pressured Israel to release prisoners for hostages and the Iran arms for hostages deal.

Jimmy Carter - $8billion in Iranian frozen assets released in echange for hostages.

Richard Nixon - encouraged GBR and W. Germany and Swiis to release terrorists in exchange for hostages.

Lyndon Johnson - agreed to a false confession of spying on N. Korea in exchange for the release of the crew of the USS Pueblo (I know this is a nation, but they’re kind of terrorists and the principle is similar)

Teddy Roosevelt - pressures sultan of Morocco to release prisoner in exchange for American hostages.

George Washington - pays ransom to Barbary pirates for release of American merchant sailors.

The results of these dealings were pretty mixed.

21

“Not for nothing, but there are plenty of people who think that you can not rule out dealing with terrorists in certain instances. Here’s a list of presidents who have made deals with terrorists.”

    • Hey, I’m no expert, just an opinionated loudmouth. If I were king, I’d go after terrorists more aggressively than Bush or any of Israel’s leaders.

“The results of these dealings were pretty mixed.”

    • I disagree with the idea of negotiating with them, because that acknowledges them as legitimate players/entities. I think the long-term result of these dealings is that we still have terrorists.

Just a thought, but do you know the safest airline in the world? El Al. Terrorists know they won’t negotiate or capitulate in any way.

22

“I disagree with the idea of negotiating with them, because that acknowledges them as legitimate players/entities.”

I’m not a big fan of negotiating, but you have to ask yourself if refusing to acknowledge them as players really has any actual effect on their ability to kill people. Is not acknowleding the groups, worth the lives of hostages, and is it our duty to save the lives of Americans even if it means giving a little to an extremist group?

24

Firstly I think EL AL might be considered the “safest airline in the world” not because of Isreal’s refusal to negotiate with terrorists but through extremely stringent security procedures and luck. Remember the surface to air missile that just missed an El Al plane leaving Kenya one or two years ago?

Second the whole “100 of them for every one of ours” ideal is inherently flawed. Islam is the most populous religion in the world and such a bloodthirsty ideal would do nothing more then move an increasing number of presently moderate individuals to fanatical status. Have you noticed Israel has attempted to “repay” the suicide attacks within its borders through tenfold body counts in Palestine? I don’t think it worked. If suddenly every Muslim in the world decided to kill 100 Americans for every dead Iraqi would you change your mind on the Iraq war? My guess is it would only make you want to see more Iraqi dead, what makes you think those in the middle east would placate under similar circumstances?

25

“I’m not a big fan of negotiating, but you have to ask yourself if refusing to acknowledge them as players really has any actual effect on their ability to kill people.”

    • It’s a tough question, but I think the answer is that it does affect their ability or willingness to kill. They do what they do for the media coverage, to make a stink and get headlines. So what if they gave a hijacking and nobody came? Suppose they hijacked a plane and the Air Force shot it down before they could do anything with it? Suppose the press never found out or all agreed not to publicize any more of this craziness? If terrorists coudn’t get attention, I think they’d be likely to look elsewhere for solutions. If they held a school full of kids hostage, demanding the release of political prisoners, I’d call their bluff. I’d line the political prisoners up outside the school and execute them at 60 second intervals until or unless the terrorists inside surrendered, and then send in troops with heavy armor and see that every last one of the terrorists left feet first. I might even suggest laying their bodies out in front of the school and letting anyone who cares to show their contempt to spit on them, urinate on them or whatever. Then I’d have them buried in one mass grave with no designation except maybe “Toxic waste site, no tresspassing.”

“Is not acknowleding the groups, worth the lives of hostages, and is it our duty to save the lives of Americans even if it means giving a little to an extremist group?”

    • I think that what Israel has shown over the years is that by refusing to negotiate, terrorists are more circumspect in choosing their victims. Anyone trying to hijack El Al, or trying to hold hostages in Tel Aviv, would simply be told, “No, you’re not going to get what you want, you’re not going to disrupt our lives, and you’re going to die sometime in the very near future, possibly in minutes.” I think that’s speaking a language that scum understands.

I could be wrong, and I hope I’m not one of the hostages that gets to die because my government won’t negotiate. But if it comes to that, I’d rather die in a violent rescue attempt than to be traded for terrorists held in our prisons. When that was over, I’d know that the people who kidnapped me would probably never face justice, and that other scum had been set loose on the world. I don’t think my life is worth that outcome.

26

Dockhead (my name’s not Rambo):

“Are you saying that we should execute civilians to scare others into complying with our demands?”

    • I’m not saying “execute,” but we backed off in Fallujah to avoid collateral damage. That kind of thinking gets our boys killed. Many, if not all, in Fallujah were complicit in the acts of brutality inflicted on Americans, so you just go in with tanks or carpet bomb the damned city. You could announce that those who don’t care to die can come out with their hands up. The problem is that the “innocent” are not so innocent. Just as in Palestine, they know who the bad guys are, and they allow them to mingle and hide among them. If the “innocent” realized the possible consequences, they’d move or come out and give you the names and addresses of the scum. Or they’d be collateral damage. Either is OK by me.

"'I want you to say, ‘Yes, we should execute innocent civilians for the purpose of scaring others into complying with our demands.’ "

    • Sorry Dickhead, that’s not what I’m saying. I know you’d like me to be saying that, but I’m not saying that. I’m also not making any comments based on race or religion, so you can stuff that one too.

“If you can say that and not dodge around it I would very much appreciate the honesty.”

    • Yeah, and I’m still waiting for honesty from you. Well, no, I know it isn’t coming.