118 hostages dead...only 1 actually shot dead

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: vladgur

You are absolutely right, the terror situation around the world will be solved by L-O-V-E. Shake that tweakmm' booty, shake that thing....

wow, you are clever...
really...
I swear

So how do you propose that we rid the world of terrorism? Even if we kill all the terrorists now, there will always be more to rise up and take their place.

 

[darren]

they should have administered the antidote or chose not to use the gas in the first place.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Yes, there is always an option of giving in to terrorists. You are living in a dream world.

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Yes, there is always an option of giving in to terrorists. You are living in a dream world.

Why are you opposed to letting them have a referendum to decide if they want to have independance? Just because some misguided individuals have chosen violence to put forward their cause doesn't mean the cause itself is invalid. *However* in this case doing the right thing (in my opinion) is also something that would have ended the hostage situation.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I'll bet the next terrorist group will think twice before trying something like this.

No, they will just have a couple safetys in the hostages so they can detonate the bombs in case something happens. The terror situation around the world is not going to be solved by violence.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh man, thanks for that, I need a good laugh!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

actually the chechnians want an Islamic state, not exactly a "republic"

also its obvios that something failed and people will be fired or worse because of it

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Hey, now there's a good idea! Let's encourage any group to simply take over a theater and kill hostages in order to achieve their goal. Wow... Come to think of it, under Yeltsin, the Russians did in fact pull out of Chechnya, so they had autonomy and de facto independence. What happened? They invaded Dagestan (neighboring republic) with the purpose of creating a pan-Islamic state. Such nice, happy people... Putin was brought to power based on the fact that he would prevent that kind of thing from happening.

 

[darren]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Yes, there is always an option of giving in to terrorists. You are living in a dream world.

Why are you opposed to letting them have a referendum to decide if they want to have independance? Just because some misguided individuals have chosen violence to put forward their cause doesn't mean the cause itself is invalid. *However* in this case doing the right thing (in my opinion) is also something that would have ended the hostage situation.

yea u got a point there.

but many people here believe that russian military occupation of chechnya is better than letting em have a crack at their own state - cause they're muslims and its gonna be islamic

 

[mcveigh]

has anyone read the article????
the hostages were not given antidotes when pulled out of the place and the gov't still hasn't told the doctors treatign them what gas they used:| that is stupid and causing more deaths.

 

[vladgur]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: vladgur

You are absolutely right, the terror situation around the world will be solved by L-O-V-E. Shake that tweakmm' booty, shake that thing....

wow, you are clever...
really...
I swear

So how do you propose that we rid the world of terrorism? Even if we kill all the terrorists now, there will always be more to rise up and take their place.

So how do you get rid of cancer cells? Even if you cut out the cancer cells, ther will be more cells in your body that might turn cancerous?
Of course you do it with violencel. Violence is the language they understand thus we must learn to use it. If a pack of wolves devours your child, do you wonder whether you not feeding the wolves is the reason for them eating your child and thus go feed the wolves or you go and destroy the wolves?

And yes, I believe I am more clever than a bunch of peacenicks on this board. Ive seen enough violence(directly and indirectly) to know that when youre attacked, you have to strike back to the root.

 

[markuskidd]

So how do you get rid of cancer cells? Even if you cut out the cancer cells, ther will be more cells in your body that might turn cancerous?

Lol, and this is why current research into curing cancer is not about cutting out the cancer cells, precisely because there will be more of them. You have made an excellent point for your opposition.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Yes, there is always an option of giving in to terrorists. You are living in a dream world.

Why are you opposed to letting them have a referendum to decide if they want to have independance? Just because some misguided individuals have chosen violence to put forward their cause doesn't mean the cause itself is invalid. *However* in this case doing the right thing (in my opinion) is also something that would have ended the hostage situation.

You are naive in the ways of this world.
I am opposed to it on a variety of reasons:
Practical:
Who is going to vote in said referendum? Just Chechens still living in Chechnya? Chechens who are refugees living in Russia? Russians who were living in Chechnya prior to the war and are also refugees living in Russia? Russians who are still in Chechnya? Chechens born in Russia who never lived in Chechnya? Al Qaeda terrorists who were living in Saudi Arabia and are now living in Chechnya? All people of Russian Federation? All of the above? None of the above?
What would the consequences of such referendum be?

If won: Would all Chechens be forced to go to Chechnya? Even those who have been living in Russia for a long time? Could Chechens guarantee no attacks on the rest of Russia from their territory, would they guarantee that no terrorists would find refuge on their land. Experience shows that during their 2 years of de-facto independence they were not able to do any of that, or establish any sort of government aside from a few warlords fighting with each other. Attacks were routinely launched on Dagestan and other parts of Russia. People were kidnapped from Russia.

If lost: Would all Chechens put down their arms, allow all refugees to return and live happily ever after? Would they expell wahabbi interventionists? Would they even be able to do any of the above if they wanted to? What about those who chose to continue fighting?

This referendum is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, because both sides would simply ignore it and continue fighting. It's not going to happen.
Some in this world let this democracy thing go to their head, but even in the US if a state voted to secede from the union, there would be civil war, as we know from history. States cannot allow themselves to be broken down into the lowest common denominators just because one group of subjects votes that way.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: vladgur

You are absolutely right, the terror situation around the world will be solved by L-O-V-E. Shake that tweakmm' booty, shake that thing....

wow, you are clever...
really...
I swear

So how do you propose that we rid the world of terrorism? Even if we kill all the terrorists now, there will always be more to rise up and take their place.

Terrorists are like cockroaches; you'll never kill them all but at least you can administer pest control to keep them from coming out of the wookwork and over-running society.

You'll never pacify all the terrorists in the world no matter what you or anyone does, some terrorists will always materialize to champion some twisted cause with violence, and giving in to them and even listening to them will just show others that violence and terrorism works. I'd rather that we keep using a big can of kickass on them.

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, what's with all this second guessing. The terrorists start killing hostages and the Russians go in. Negotiations are fine until the terrorist start killing hostages en masse.

Only 2 hostages died from gunfire, according to official new sources. That is not "en masse." Whatever you were told there must not be true.
No one is approving of terrorists or hostages-takers, but this was obviously a more-or-less failed rescue scenario, with unacceptable hostages casualties (~15%). The fact that those deaths were caused by the Russian government, and not the hostage-takers as would be the usual case, makes the situation that much worse.
With Putin on Russian TV giving formal apologies, you can guarantee that heads are rolling in the Russian government right now.

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"
2. Not use gas, rush in and risk massive explosions. Now even if the building didn't collapse, there were dozens of chechen women sitting there wired up to blow. Surrounded by hostages. We are talking about blowing up dozens of bombs in a crowded theatre. Now given the size of their explosives, each would probably take down a dozen or more around them. If the building collapsed, everyone including the rescuers would die, probably around 1000 people.
3. Use gas. Which would kill some hostages with lower tolerances, but would neutralize the terrorists. They had to use enough gas to incapacitate all terrorists if they wanted to avoid explosions. There are so many variables, that it's impossible to calculate how much gas is needed to avoid killing the hostages and at the same time take out all the terrorists.
The Russians did what they had to do with the information that they had. Now if you can come up with a better solution given what they knew then, I would like to know it. And why are 15% casualties unacceptable? And why would it be better if the hostages were killed by terrorists who wouldn't give them any chance to survive as opposed to being killed by Russians in a rescue attempt, where at least they had a chance?

#4. Allow the Chechans to have a referendum to decide whether they will become an independant republic?

Yes, there is always an option of giving in to terrorists. You are living in a dream world.

Why are you opposed to letting them have a referendum to decide if they want to have independance? Just because some misguided individuals have chosen violence to put forward their cause doesn't mean the cause itself is invalid. *However* in this case doing the right thing (in my opinion) is also something that would have ended the hostage situation.

You are naive in the ways of this world.
I am opposed to it on a variety of reasons:
Practical:
Who is going to vote in said referendum? Just Chechens still living in Chechnya? Chechens who are refugees living in Russia? Russians who were living in Chechnya prior to the war and are also refugees living in Russia? Russians who are still in Chechnya? Chechens born in Russia who never lived in Chechnya? Al Qaeda terrorists who were living in Saudi Arabia and are now living in Chechnya? All people of Russian Federation? All of the above? None of the above?
What would the consequences of such referendum be?

If won: Would all Chechens be forced to go to Chechnya? Even those who have been living in Russia for a long time? Could Chechens guarantee no attacks on the rest of Russia from their territory, would they guarantee that no terrorists would find refuge on their land. Experience shows that during their 2 years of de-facto independence they were not able to do any of that, or establish any sort of government aside from a few warlords fighting with each other. Attacks were routinely launched on Dagestan and other parts of Russia. People were kidnapped from Russia.

If lost: Would all Chechens put down their arms, allow all refugees to return and live happily ever after? Would they expell wahabbi interventionists? Would they even be able to do any of the above if they wanted to? What about those who chose to continue fighting?

This referendum is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, because both sides would simply ignore it and continue fighting. It's not going to happen.
Some in this world let this democracy thing go to their head, but even in the US if a state voted to secede from the union, there would be civil war, as we know from history. States cannot allow themselves to be broken down into the lowest common denominators just because one group of subjects votes that way.

I say, if the majority of people who live in a region decide that they wish to be independant of the nation that controls the region, that should be their right. You are trying to say this is not a valid viewpoint by giving examples of situations where nations declared war on groups of people who have declared independence. Gee whiz, I've "let this democracy thing go to my head." I feel so ... dirty lol.

 

[SuperTool]

If you exclude enough people, you can get a majority for anything.

Majority of people who live in a region

means different things to different people. Give it some time and

Majority of people who live in a region

are going to be Russian soldiers

 

[tcsenter]

they should have administered the antidote or chose not to use the gas in the first place.

I don't question their decision to use the gas, whatever it was. There is little doubt that it was effective in preventing the detonation of explosives, which officials have described as being "littered" all over the theatre.

I question their failure to properly plan and prepare for the dangerous after-effects of the gas. In the minutes before the operation, there should have been a representative in contact with every hospital warning them to be prepared for a wave of patients who would be suffering from inhalation poisoning, what the gas was, and what the counter agent was. This refusal to disclose the type of gas so that proper treatment could be administered is an outrage.

On site there should have been two or three dozen trained medical personnel ready to intensively treat hostages after the theatre had been taken and reasonably secured.

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If you exclude enough people, you can get a majority for anything.

Majority of people who live in a region

means different things to different people. Give it some time and

Majority of people who live in a region

are going to be Russian soldiers

I respond to some questions you pose, and you respond with.... what???

If you exclude enough people, you can get a majority for anything.

Thank you, confucious. You have enligtened us all with this amazing trusim.

Majority of people who live in a region means different things to different people.

Whoa! Two of 'em in the same post! We've got a winner here!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If you exclude enough people, you can get a majority for anything.

Majority of people who live in a region

means different things to different people. Give it some time and

Majority of people who live in a region

are going to be Russian soldiers

I respond to some questions you pose, and you respond with.... what???

If you exclude enough people, you can get a majority for anything.

Thank you, confucious. You have enligtened us all with this amazing trusim.

Majority of people who live in a region means different things to different people.

Whoa! Two of 'em in the same post! We've got a winner here!

Going somewhere with this?

 

[markuskidd]

Going somewhere with this?

Already there. It's a pity you're stuck where you're sitting.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: markuskidd

Going somewhere with this?

Already there. It's a pity you're stuck where you're sitting.

OK, so when is the Referendum?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

they should have administered the antidote or chose not to use the gas in the first place.

I don't question their decision to use the gas, whatever it was. There is little doubt that it was effective in preventing the detonation of explosives, which officials have described as being "littered" all over the theatre.

I question their failure to properly plan and prepare for the dangerous after-effects of the gas. In the minutes before the operation, there should have been a representative in contact with every hospital warning them to be prepared for a wave of patients who would be suffering from inhalation poisoning, what the gas was, and what the counter agent was. This refusal to disclose the type of gas so that proper treatment could be administered is an outrage.

On site there should have been two or three dozen trained medical personnel ready to intensively treat hostages after the theatre had been taken and reasonably secured.

I totally agree with this. If they wanted to keep the nature of the gas a secret, they should have brought military doctors in with the necessary training, plus the necessary security clearances, and treated as many people onsite as they could. We don't know the whole situation from the Russian government point of view, but it sure does seem like someone made some planning mistakes.

However, this outcome is still preferable to the terrorists shooting people and blowing themselves up along with the hostages and the theater.

 

[lowtech1]

The terrorists said they would start executing hostages at 6 in the morning. They killed 2 at 5:30, and the Russians heard automatic weapons fire. The hostages that made it out said they had full expectation of being killed. Now, what would you have the Russians do?
1. Sit back and say, "yep let them shoot. they'll run out of ammo eventually"

We don't know what the spin doctors gave us, but it was mentioned that the Russian Alpha team penetrated the building sewer & ventilation system almost a day befor the hostages were shot. It has been known that the Alpha team hasn't has a sucessful mission prior to this incident, therefor they could screwed up causing the terrorist to panic and execute the hostages to presure them back. The situation migth had exacerbate to the excecution of gas attack & out of schedule asault.

I'm not sure what to think, but my theory is that the pooly trained Alpha team may have screwup so bad that they had to silence every rebel in that building. The reason I feel this way is that there isn't a know method/gas that could fill a large volume of air space in such a quick/evenly maner that the hostage takers didn't have enough time to detonate at least one of the 18 their on body bombs.

Another question that I have is that why only 1 out of the 70-80 foreigner hostages died from the gas attack while there were 116 out of 700 or so Russian died. The weird thing is that the odds are so lopsided when the idea behind it is to force the international countries to involve in the Russia/Chechen disbute.

Hopefully the international survivor will shed a bit of light into what has happened.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
russians are hardcore

Damn right, they are. Once they gassed everyone, they went in and shot all of the terrorists in the head while they were incapicated. They didn't even bother TRYING to arrest them!

Compare that to the US, where the rebels would have probably been allowed to sue for police brutality if anyone of them got hurt while they were being escorted to the holding trucks

 

[tcsenter]

The reason I feel this way is that there isn't a know method/gas that could fill a large volume of air space in such a quick/evenly maner that the hostage takers didn't have enough time to detonate at least one of the 18 their on body bombs.

If the gas is odorless, colorless, and rapid acting, you have no indication that a gas is present and acting upon you. The number of people killed by the gas is a pretty good indicator that massive amounts of this stuff was pumped into the theatre, resulting in a fatal dose for many people.

 

[lowtech1]

If the gas is odorless, colorless, and rapid acting, you have no indication that a gas is present and acting upon you.

It is maybe so, but highly unlikely.

The number of people killed by the gas is a pretty good indicator that massive amounts of this stuff was pumped into the theatre, resulting in a fatal dose for many people.

We still haven't figure out why there were only 1/70-80 foreigner death to 116/650 Russian death, and I'm not convince that luck had anything to do with it.