Russian Commandos storm school

[Frank the Tank]

My Webpage

Sounds like one of those instances where the death toll will continue to rise. Also mentions that several hostage-takers "escaped". I thought they had the school surrounded? It appears to be total chaos.

[transplant99]

CNN reporting now that "up to 100" bodies have been found inside.


Russian troops today stormed a school in southern Russia and secured the building where an armed gang, believed to be Chechen rebels, took hundreds of children, parents and teachers hostage on Wednesday. Interfax news agency said dozens of people had been killed in the collapse of the roof at the school where hostages were held. A British ITV News reporter said up to 100 bodies were seen in the school gymnasium.


Brutal.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/03...hool/index.html

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Japanese news just reported the exact same thing.

Brutal.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

At this point, fotze, I'm beginning it might be cultural. I admit to not knowing much about the country in terms of people, but they seem take a fatalistic approach to these things - back in the wars where they were three muskets for every 10 soldiers, (jumping ahead) the botched theatre rescue which killed more than it saved and this one where it would appear a lot more were saved than killed, but not enough to underscore the severity of the incident.

Wonder if anyone could provide some insight, esp those with military backgrounds. It seems to run counter how things are done in other places around the world.

[habernac]

I don't think there was much choice. The Russians were not going to give in to the terrorists. Sounds like alot of the hostages were killed by bombs that were set up in the gymnasium where they were being held. Tough decision, try to save all of them or rush them and hope you can save the majority.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 3 2004, 07:49 AM
Is it me or could Russia ###### up a bake sale.

Yeah, it didn't turn out so good, but what the hell were they supposed to do? Give in to the demands?

Sure, you storm into a school where terrorists are holding people hostage and regretably people will die. But you give in to their demands and you open the door for more terrorists to do the same things. Sometimes you have to be a hardliner and accept that some people are going to die. It sucks, but it is sure better than the alternative.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I will never understand the mentality....let's kill some innocent kids, then they'll give us what we want! Same thing in Israel, it makes zero sense.

And before someone trots out the "they've had children killed too BS" I would say that what kind of mental reject reacts to the death of a child by killing someone else's child?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Sep 3 2004, 07:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Sep 3 2004, 07:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@Sep 3 2004, 07:49 AM
Is it me or could Russia ###### up a bake sale.

Yeah, it didn't turn out so good, but what the hell were they supposed to do? Give in to the demands?

Sure, you storm into a school where terrorists are holding people hostage and regretably people will die. But you give in to their demands and you open the door for more terrorists to do the same things. Sometimes you have to be a hardliner and accept that some people are going to die. It sucks, but it is sure better than the alternative. [/b][/quote]
According to the CBC report, this wasn't a planned assault. The some children tried to escape, and the terrorists opened fire on them, all this while the soldiers were trying to retrieve the bodies lying infront of the school. Once the militants were firing on children outside of the school, storming the school was probably the only solution. Who knows if that's true, or if that's the Russian government's justification. I don't know, I assume we'll get more details.

[jam26]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 3 2004, 02:39 PM

On the other hand how much would it screw the terrorists heads and virtually eliminate the leverage of the hostage taking if the next time they take hostages, the Russians just blow all of them up saying 'screw the hostages we will kill you at every opportunity even if it means killing innocent people. Crazy but it might work.

Nah, that wouldn't work. These terrorists are fully prepared to die for their cause.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny up until the theatre rescue Russians used Spetznaz, a highly specialized group of special warfare soldiers. Highly trained, highly specialized they had a reputation for competance especially for situations like this one.

The Afghans hated these guys because they were the only ones that were willing to fight and win in the mountains where the rebels came from.

They were known to have very competant leadership, and every member had to be a combat veteran and into his second or third tour of the Russian Military which would make them sergants or higher, (the promotion system dosen't work the same way as it does in NATO countries)

This dosen't sound like thier work at all

It also sounds like the tactical situation was screwed up when hostages made a run for it, and the commando's closed on the school to pull them out. They lost any control right there and had no choice but to rush the school.

If you look at any hostage rescue crisis, entries are usually well planned to surprise the enemy, and you have enough intelligence to know where the enemies are so you can go in and kill them before they the surprise wears off.

Russia's military has eroded faster then our military here in Canada. But they do have some troops that are well funded and well trained and well equiped. Thier special forces is one of them, as are some of the armoured guards units around thier major cities.

It would be interesting to know who these commando's were, I have a feeling that they might have been attached to law enforcement as opposed to military.

I'm not willing to blame the deaths on the troops entirely as the situation dissolved into chaos and when you lose control of the hostage takers and have to storm without a plan, deaths are going to occur.

Pretty sad tho

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by jam26+Sep 3 2004, 02:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jam26 @ Sep 3 2004, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@Sep 3 2004, 02:39 PM

On the other hand how much would it screw the terrorists heads and virtually eliminate the leverage of the hostage taking if the next time they take hostages, the Russians just blow all of them up saying 'screw the hostages we will kill you at every opportunity even if it means killing innocent people. Crazy but it might work.

Nah, that wouldn't work. These terrorists are fully prepared to die for their cause. [/b][/quote]
I'm not sure if I agree with you on this, I'm not sure if I disagree with you.

I think the average terrorist leader see's his people as pawns and is willing to throw them away.

However I don't see them being willing to throw away assets on a lost cause.

If the Russians blew up the school killing everyone in it, is there any profit to the terrorists to try and pull something like this off again if the Russians are going to just blow up that school?

If the terrorists can't get thier point accross because the other side is not willing to bend, then they might not be so willing to toss thier people away

just a thought

[Lurch]

I will never understand the mentality....let's kill some innocent kids, then they'll give us what we want! Same thing in Israel, it makes zero sense.

And before someone trots out the "they've had children killed too BS" I would say that what kind of mental reject reacts to the death of a child by killing someone else's child?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

I wouldn't, you wouldn't, probably 99.9% of North Americans would not. Israel and Russia demonstrably do via their military, as do Palestinians and Chechnyans via armed rebels (terrorists if you like) - they are locked in a conflict that actually impacts their lives on a daily and seemingly permanent basis, while we are locked in an ideological debate over what is acceptable to civilized society.

If I understand you correctly, the majority of the people in these areas suffer some sort of mass mental defect that allows them to perform these acts and / or support them if they don't actually participate in the act. After all, guerillas can only really be effective if some substantial portion of the locals support them. I don't buy the argument that these people are somehow defective.

Here is an example from an anthropology class I took quite a long while ago, so hopefully I remember the details properly. Aid workers in a third world country had (or still have?) a hard time convincing mothers to give medicine to their sick children. Rather, the mothers give their medicine to the healthy children based on the belief that the sick children have no hope, and it is far better to concentrate your resources on healthy children in their mind. According to my western sensibilities, this is pretty disturbing. However, I'm not so sure they suffer from some mental defect that makes them willing to 'kill' their own babies - rather, circumstances are far different to those that we know and base our beliefs on.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So because they have a different cicrumstance, killing children is acceptable since they seem to feel justified in doing so?

OK.

[CaptainCrunch]

I could see Lurch's if he argued from the point that they have a different value defined for human life.

But you didn't, if I understand you right you stated that because of thier social situation its justifieable.

I don't buy it.

To intentionally go after children or the weak, no matter what the circumstance, makes you lacking on the humanity scale.

The example of the mother making a choice between children is a completely different thing. She's not killing a kid through a malice act. She's letting one kid die as a choice so the other one will live.

Completely different ball of wax

[Frank the Tank]

Also, to complicate the situation, one of the numerous stories I have read, stated that civilians opened fire on the hostage-takers, escalating the situation before the military was fully prepared. A little vigilante justice gone wrong?

[???]

too me something doesnt add up on this whole mess. this was by far the most counter productive terrorist act in history. if i was a chechan right now id be sh*ting my pants. 9/11 was nuts but it also was an attack on americas finacial and milatary infrastrucutre {sp, always with the spelling}, these idiots attacked a school. how in the world do you consider this a valid milatary target? IMHO this has given russia the same power that 9/11 gave to america, no one will care if they kill a million chechans now. all i can do is shake my head.... on a side note this reminds me of a book called " my jihad" an american mujahadeen fighter who went to chechnya. pretty interesting book, kinda puts a different look at the muslim side of jihad and the conflict in chechnya.

[Lurch]

I'm not sure where I said it was justified. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that if offends my personal morality as a North American. The difference between my opinion and 'yours' (not any one in particular, just one opposing opinion) is that I do not feel the other side is any better nor do I suggest that my opinion is the right one as an absolute. This is the aspect of GW I despise the most - the belief that western ideals and values are correct, and those with different views are wrong and morally inferior.

Am I justifying the Chechen response by suggesting maybe things aren't black and white, maybe things the west does in Iraq/Palestine/Afghanistan/et al are just as bad if you evaluated them on the results rather than on the supposed rationale fed to you by the powers that be? NO. What I am suggesting is that if you held Israel, Russia, the US, etc. to the same standards and look at what they have wrought in various places in the world, maybe you would start to think that speaking in moral absolutes is dangerous b/c our governments, both directly and indirectly, have committed acts that have exactly the same results. We explain these away by saying look at the circumstances and motives. For example, who is worse: a soldier who abuses prisoners (and potentially kills some as there is an investigation into around 20 prisoners who died in captivity) in Iraq simply b/c they can, or a militant who blows up a bus to accomplish some nebulous goal like having a country to call his own. In case A, we blame circumstances and say not every soldier is bad and the situation made them do it, in case B we say there is something morally abhorrent about a whole group of people. In my mind, both are equally bad, and I think it's time the world started calling a spade a spade.

[BlackArcher101]

This is why Rainbow Six should become real.

[jam26]

200 and counting now...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 3 2004, 06:03 PM
For example, who is worse: a soldier who abuses prisoners (and potentially kills some as there is an investigation into around 20 prisoners who died in captivity) in Iraq simply b/c they can, or a militant who blows up a bus to accomplish some nebulous goal like having a country to call his own. In case A, we blame circumstances and say not every soldier is bad and the situation made them do it, in case B we say there is something morally abhorrent about a whole group of people. In my mind, both are equally bad, and I think it's time the world started calling a spade a spade.

In case A, its easy to believe the actions of a few soldiers impugned the reputations of 130,000 (although i agree inadequate leadership set the conditions) as well as the image of a nation. Is it fair of me to make that observation? Probably not but that's the reality.

In Case B . . . . well, thousands of Palestinians were filmed dancing in the streets on news of the 9/11 attacks and, as the left is quick to remind us, there isn't any shortage of volunteers to be indiscriminate homicide bombers. The left tells us its because of poverty and despair yet there are other cultures around the world in similar poverty and similar despair who don't seem to have a similar ingrained homicidal bent nor do we see it egged on in the name of religion.

Am I being unfair in that observation as well?

Cowperson