Russian hostage crisis...how will it end???

[Wicked Pilot]

Hostage situations are seldom filled with easy decisions. This was no exception.

[Stormbringer]

They did the best they could in a shitty situation. And before everyone starting blameing the Russians for those that died: remember that those terrorist would have killed them all. And without the gas, it would have been much, much worse.

[TrailerParkJawa]

They did the best they could in a shitty situation. And before everyone starting blameing the Russians for those that died: remember that those terrorist would have killed them all. And without the gas, it would have been much, much worse.

Has there been any indication of what was used. I heard references to some sort of long lasting haullucinegen. Kinda scary, I cant help but wonder if I would have died because of the gas or been okay.

[Enlightenment]

Guesses/informed speculation on the 'sleeping gas' range from regular tear gas (CS), medical anaesthetics, NOx ('laughing gas'), and the nerve agent BZ. It might have been something completely unknown in western chemical warfare circles.

I posted a query to sci.military.moderated, where a few reasonably well-informed weapons of mass destruction people hang out, and am awaiting responses. I'll post a direct link if anything interesting comes up.

[Edi]

News report from yesterday evening (it's now 08.30 here) indicated about 650 people in hospital, 150 of them in intensive care and 45 of those in critical condition with no guarantee of survival. Medical experts from the Finnish armed forces said that the gas could not have been BZ, but could be some more dangerous derivative of it. A more likely scenario is that it was valium-based. The general consensus was that it is something specifically developed for combat use, which means that by using it, Russia is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty.

As of yesterday evening, 118 hostages dead, only two of them from gunshot wounds, 116 from gas poisoning. Some 30 or 40 of the Chechens were killed. The Russians killed their own, and there were reports from anonymous government sources (officially denied, of course) that the acceptable death toll among hostages was considered 150 or thereabouts. The Russian reporter who negotiated with the Chechens, Anna Politkovskaya, said that the handling of the issue was pretty much fucked up from the get-go and that the actual demands of the Chechens were not as unreasonable as has been portrayed in the media. Namely, according to her, they were as follows:
1) A public promise from president Putin that he will seek to put a swift end to the Chechnya war
2) A demonstration on the following day that the promise is being acted upon. The withdrawal of any single large unit (regiment or whatever) from chechnya would have been sufficient to satisfy this condition
3) A confirmation of condition 2 by international monitors

After this the hostages would have been released. The Chechens themselves never intended to leave the building alive, but die fighting the Russian special forces after releasing the hostages.

However, according to Russian news reports (based on the anonymous government sources), it was decided that the standoff was to be ended with no regard for hostage casualties in order to prevent the general atmosphere in Russia from turning against the Chechen war. There are some evaluations of the situations that state the Chechens only started killing hostages after they noticed Russian special forces preparing to storm the building. However, since only two hostages died of gunshot wounds and there was a gunfight inside, I don't give this much credence.

My sources on this are the Finnish TV news and this morning's newspaper, which unfortunately won't do most of you people any good, because you don't know Finnish, as well as some snatches from BBC World.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

News report from yesterday evening (it's now 08.30 here) indicated about 650 people in hospital, 150 of them in intensive care and 45 of those in critical condition with no guarantee of survival. Medical experts from the Finnish armed forces said that the gas could not have been BZ, but could be some more dangerous derivative of it. A more likely scenario is that it was valium-based. The general consensus was that it is something specifically developed for combat use, which means that by using it, Russia is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty.

It wasn't a valium variant, either. Also, I should note that since it was used in a insurrection, Russia is technically not in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty. This was also our excuse for using CS gas in Vietnam, and if the Vietnam War is an Insurrection, then the Chechen War sure as hell is.

As of yesterday evening, 118 hostages dead, only two of them from gunshot wounds, 116 from gas poisoning. Some 30 or 40 of the Chechens were killed. The Russians killed their own, and there were reports from anonymous government sources (officially denied, of course) that the acceptable death toll among hostages was considered 150 or thereabouts.

There's something unreasonable about that? everyone would have died if they didn't use the gas, Edi. These are Islamist fanatics, you know, willing to die for Paradise. They might have even been using drugs to prepare themselves for the afterlife, just like the Hashishans - Some of the Jihad Fighters in Afghanistan did that, and there were Chechens there, and I've heard that the Russian media reported various drug pariphenelia found in the theatre.

The Russian reporter who negotiated with the Chechens, Anna Politkovskaya, said that the handling of the issue was pretty much fucked up from the get-go and that the actual demands of the Chechens were not as unreasonable as has been portrayed in the media. Namely, according to her, they were as follows:
1) A public promise from president Putin that he will seek to put a swift end to the Chechnya war
2) A demonstration on the following day that the promise is being acted upon. The withdrawal of any single large unit (regiment or whatever) from chechnya would have been sufficient to satisfy this condition
3) A confirmation of condition 2 by international monitors

And you can trust her? She's a reporter, and they have agendas. That's the price of freedom of the press - And it's pretty clear she has one in regard to Chechnya.

Anyway, even if what she said was accurate, any agreement with terrorists is unacceptable. You Do Not Make Deals With Terrorists. We're fighting a war for the survival of civilization; if you give them an inch they'll exploit it for all it is worth and reign in on their promises besides.

Those terrorists got exactly what they deserved, and we are but fortunate that so few of the hostages were killed.

After this the hostages would have been released. The Chechens themselves never intended to leave the building alive, but die fighting the Russian special forces after releasing the hostages.

I hope you're just trying to impartially report what you heard, because nobody is going to trust what Chechens told a gullible reporter who has an agenda.

My sources on this are the Finnish TV news and this morning's newspaper, which unfortunately won't do most of you people any good, because you don't know Finnish, as well as some snatches from BBC World.

Edi

Well, between the two, I look at it like this - All of us over at David and Stu's board have been debating the issue pretty heavily:

There was probably a Soviet-era SOP involving the use of this gas, which was followed. We'll call the gas "dropem", since we don't know what it is and that's what it did, and, hell, maybe it's actually codenamed that. So you get X canisters of dropem and Y tablets/injectors/whatever of the antidote, say, "wakeup", and that's what you use for the Op, and this stuff was probably grabbed out of a warehouse somewhere and administered according to this SOP - And the guys using it might not have even known what it is.

And so it's only after it is used according to the SOP that they realize that nobody knows what the hell the gas is, that the plant it was made in is churning out dish detergent or whatever now, and the chemists who conceived of it are in the USA designing auto air fresheners. So the stock of wakeup is used up, and literally nobody on the scene can tell the docs what the dropem really is.

This is an interesting gas, it's probably something totally new, and was likely classified. So you go up through channels trying to find out what it is, through this creaking bureaucracy which is still trying to learn how to be open about those sorts of things. End result is that over a hundred hostages are dead from it, simply because that's the remnants of the Soviet era system and that's what they have to deal with over there.

Another possibility, more brutal, is that they intentionally didn't tell the docs what it was, because if what it is leaks, then someone can start producing the antidote for it and it becomes nearly ineffective. That's brutal, but this is a war and that gas is very effective and potentially quite useful again. The mathematics of 150 civilian lives could have been considered worth the secret - After all, there's no such thing as a non-combatant in a terrorist war.

No, I can't, and I won't, fault the Russians for anything in this, no matter the scenario. They did what they had to do, and there are lots of people alive whom I am certain, despite the claims of certain persons, would be dead today were it not for their actions.

Would you take the chance if you were on the scene? You have just seconds to make up your mind. That's what the situation was like; there was no luxury of hindsight and a nice, warm room, and a comfortable chair, to think this over.

[Edi]

Forgive me if I'll ignore your opinion about whether Russia was in violation of the CWB treaty, but I think I'll take the word of British and Finnish military experts over yours any day of the week.

There's something unreasonable about that? everyone would have died if they didn't use the gas, Edi. These are Islamist fanatics, you know, willing to die for Paradise. They might have even been using drugs to prepare themselves for the afterlife, just like the Hashishans - Some of the Jihad Fighters in Afghanistan did that, and there were Chechens there, and I've heard that the Russian media reported various drug pariphenelia found in the theatre.

I'll let you in on a secret: I don't give a fuck either way. Whether all 700+ of them would have died instead of just the 118 that did, I couldn't care less. It's Russians we're talking about here, and I believe I said something about how I see them in our previous debate, Marina. If you don't remember, go look it up. Because of the hate for them I learned, I am unable to see them as human unless I talk to them face to face, one on one, and consequently unless it's some Russian I personally know who's in question, I don't give a shit. It's not pretty or something to be proud of, but it's the truth and I'm not about to deny it. I am incapable of being truly objective with regard to Russians. I simply do not care. There's an ugly, vindictive, hateful part of me that was disappointed that they all didn't die. I ignore it, and suppress it when I can't ignore it, and I will not give in to it. There's a far bigger part of me, the part that was taught right from wrong and to be principled and kind, and that part was sad that so many died. That's also the part of me that tries to be objective toward all humans, regardless of nationality or religion, and it didn't particularly like certain other aspects of this case.

Just like you are unable to see Muslims as human and don't give a shit about what happens to them (unless you personally knew them, I think), and how you're pretty incapable of being objective with regard to them, so am I toward the Russians. In this we're pretty much like two peas in a pod.

You identify more with the Russians, I identify more with the Chechens, and I'm meaning the people of Chechnya here, not these particular individuals who pulled off this operation.

And you can trust her? She's a reporter, and they have agendas. That's the price of freedom of the press - And it's pretty clear she has one in regard to Chechnya.

So I should trust you instead, with your known anti-Muslim agenda? That'd be good for a joke if you weren't serious. What do you know of the individual in question? She happens to be Russian. Her aim was to try and help solve the standoff with minimal casualties on all sides. She told the authorities everything she saw in there. Her main goal was to get the hostages out alive. That the Chechens let her in might have something to do with the fact that she has reported on the Chechnyan situation before, in an objective fashion, which means she's castigated both sides equally for their conduct. The Russian army's behavior there is not something that bears the light of day very well, something which is quietly ignored practically everywhere. I don't read all that many ulterior motives to Politkovskaya's actions the way you do, and I don't automatically assume black-white division the way you do.

Anyway, even if what she said was accurate, any agreement with terrorists is unacceptable. You Do Not Make Deals With Terrorists.

Which makes for something of a dilemma. You don't, but you usually don't drive people into a corner so badly that they need to take this drastic action simply to get attention either. Russia has repeatedly and systematically refused negotiations with Mashadov (the legally elected president of Chechnya) and has continued a reign of terror in Chechnya. Sorry, but from another point of view the Chechens are freedom fighters, not terrorists. They'll take help from where they can get it, but that in itself does not make them all terrorists. And you do negotiate with guerillas in order to end hostilities. This case can be either terrorism or guerilla operation depending on point of view. I'm aware of the problem.

We're fighting a war for the survival of civilization; if you give them an inch they'll exploit it for all it is worth and reign in on their promises besides.

You imagine we're all fighting some global war to preserve civilization, the real world looks quite different. The Chechens are simply fighting to survive, and to get freedom from oppression, random killings, rape and looting by foreign (Russian) occupation forces that run amok at will. The world is not black and white, but shades of gray.

I hope you're just trying to impartially report what you heard, because nobody is going to trust what Chechens told a gullible reporter who has an agenda.

I reported what was on the news and the newspaper here, nothing more, nothing less, and the only statement where my own opinion was expressed was clearly delineated as such (last sentence in the paragraph before my sources). This second post is very much more an opinion piece. And you might back up the claims of Politkovskaya being gullible and having an agenda other than trying to solve and defuse the situation. You have an opinion about that, but if you want to state it as fact, back it up or shut the fuck up about it.

As for your proposed scenarios, I'll go with the more brutal one because it's more likely. The Russian government, and its Soviet predecessor, was never concerned with civilian casualties, and certainly never with a number as insignificant as 150. They've covered up worse things, done worse things, and never been called to account. It's entirely possible that the government was behind the apartment block bombings in Moscow a few years ago that were attributed to Chechens, but there is no real proof either way.

And if the first scenario is true, it just displays incredible incompetence on so many levels that I don't think it's likely. If they've got some classified gas in some secret old storehouse, there will be a record somewhere about what it contains and whether there is an antidote and what it is. They claimed it was standard anesthetic, which is an out and out lie, and they've refused to name the gas, or tell anything about it. They're protecting something from their chemical weapons program and don't give a shit about a few hundred bystanders.

Besides, they knew what the likely effects were going to be. Gas poisoning is a question of dosage, and they knew the people in there were weak from lack of food and water. This whole affair stinks on many levels, and shit happened.

After all, there's no such thing as a non-combatant in a terrorist war.

Either you're with them or with us... You really believe that crap, have swallowed it hook, line and sinker, haven't you? This so-called war on terror you harp about has more than two groups of people. In the broad sense it's us vs. them, but when you break it down further, you've got the terrorists and those who support them, you've got those who actively go out and fight them, you've got those who don't give a shit, and you've got the victims. The last can be members of any group other than the terrorists themselves. You also make the mistake of painting with a too broad brush in the sense that you take some group of people that has produced a few terrorists, and you label all people in that group terrorists. Give it a fucking rest already with the overbroad generalisations.

Would you take the chance if you were on the scene? You have just seconds to make up your mind. That's what the situation was like; there was no luxury of hindsight and a nice, warm room, and a comfortable chair, to think this over.

True, I'd have had to do something if I'd been there and in charge. Then again, if I'd been, I'd have had a far clearer picture of the available options, something we don't have now. They made a choice to use gas and lots of people died. They solved the situation yes, and not as many people died as could have, so in that sense it was a success, but you seem far too willing to ignore the other questions surrounding the issue.

If the main concern of the Russian government was only to prevent the public opinion from turning against the war in Chechnya and to avoid losing face, the operation was fucked up from start to finish and utterly immoral to boot.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Forgive me if I'll ignore your opinion about whether Russia was in violation of the CWB treaty, but I think I'll take the word of British and Finnish military experts over yours any day of the week.

What I'm just saying is that technical violations of the CWB treaty happen all the time, which are pushed under the carpet by legal excuses, provided by international law lawyers. Treaties have loopholes and the CWB is one of them - And just like the USA used CS gas in Vietnam, well, Vietnam was classed as an "Insurrection" by the US Government. Think about what the Russians consider Chechnya for a moment, okay?

Oh. Wait - You're talking about the ban. Sorry. I was thinking about the

PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR
OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES,
AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE

Which was ratified in 1928. Nevermind - There are a hell of a lot of legal documents out there for my brain to sift through this late at night.

Uhm, anyway, from the relevant one, the CWC - That's its correct name, Chemical Weapons Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

So a chemical weapon must be designed to cause death. Clearly, the weapon used at the theatre was not designed to cause death; that was a side-effect.

Secondly:

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

It WOULD however probably fall under the definition of a "toxic chemical", though the Russians would probably argue that it was an experimental riot agent that they hadn't disclosed yet and there'd be no way of proving it one way or the other.

If it was a riot agent, then it would be perfectly legitimate to use in this situation - Though you can't legally use riot agents in War under the CWC, you can use them, of course, in other internal situations. Which the Russians rightly call the Chechen problem. And there's no way, again, to prove if it's an experimental riot agent or not - So the lawyers win the day, and like most international treaties of this sort the CWC is totally useless because there's no force to back it up.

I'll let you in on a secret: I don't give a fuck either way. Whether all 700+ of them would have died instead of just the 118 that did, I couldn't care less. It's Russians we're talking about here, and I believe I said something about how I see them in our previous debate, Marina. If you don't remember, go look it up. Because of the hate for them I learned, I am unable to see them as human unless I talk to them face to face, one on one, and consequently unless it's some Russian I personally know who's in question, I don't give a shit. It's not pretty or something to be proud of, but it's the truth and I'm not about to deny it. I am incapable of being truly objective with regard to Russians. I simply do not care. There's an ugly, vindictive, hateful part of me that was disappointed that they all didn't die. I ignore it, and suppress it when I can't ignore it, and I will not give in to it. There's a far bigger part of me, the part that was taught right from wrong and to be principled and kind, and that part was sad that so many died. That's also the part of me that tries to be objective toward all humans, regardless of nationality or religion, and it didn't particularly like certain other aspects of this case.

Just like you are unable to see Muslims as human and don't give a shit about what happens to them (unless you personally knew them, I think), and how you're pretty incapable of being objective with regard to them, so am I toward the Russians. In this we're pretty much like two peas in a pod.

I actually take offense to that comment in the extreme, because I've been called a Turkophile before, and greatly admire the accomplishments of the Turkish people, and the long and storied history of the Ottoman Empire. It's a massively inaccurate comparison as you strive to tar your opponent with the brush you're blackened with.

I certainly think that a lot of the Muslim world is locked in a cycle of barbaric primitivism, but not all of it, and I can admire the achievements of even those regions.

You identify more with the Russians, I identify more with the Chechens, and I'm meaning the people of Chechnya here, not these particular individuals who pulled off this operation.

Well, obviously. Russia has a nominally functional democracy and a flat income tax. If a dictator took over the USA tommorow I'd flee to Russia - God I'd love a flat income tax. In many ways the USA and Russia are quite similiar. We're both from the fringes of European civilization, and we had long stretches of wilderness to subdue on our own fringes. We just went about our diversionary paths quite differently, but now they're slowly coming together.

Finland, however, is most assuredly mainstream European. It's not surprising that I have both Turkish and Russian friends, who both live in the USA, and they are friends with each other as well - While at the same time I cannot get along with you. Europe has set her own course, and I suspect that Turkey and Russia will never be a part of it, all claims and designs to the contrary duly considered.

So I should trust you instead, with your known anti-Muslim agenda?

I have no anti-Muslim agenda. My only agenda, if anything, would be to restore the supremacy of the current Turkish conceptualization of Islam to the Muslim world, that is to say, secularism.

Which makes for something of a dilemma. You don't, but you usually don't drive people into a corner so badly that they need to take this drastic action simply to get attention either. Russia has repeatedly and systematically refused negotiations with Mashadov (the legally elected president of Chechnya) and has continued a reign of terror in Chechnya. Sorry, but from another point of view the Chechens are freedom fighters, not terrorists. They'll take help from where they can get it, but that in itself does not make them all terrorists. And you do negotiate with guerillas in order to end hostilities. This case can be either terrorism or guerilla operation depending on point of view. I'm aware of the problem.

Well, the Chechens refused to work through the democratic government of Russia. Why should we have sympathy for them? If they win, it's pretty clear now they'll end up Islamist, besides that. They're simply traitors against a democratically elected government, and the ones caught with guns in their hands get the bullet to the back of the head they receive. In fact, it's even legal in the Geneva Conventions if they're not in uniform.

You imagine we're all fighting some global war to preserve civilization, the real world looks quite different. The Chechens are simply fighting to survive, and to get freedom from oppression, random killings, rape and looting by foreign (Russian) occupation forces that run amok at will. The world is not black and white, but shades of gray.

Actually, I think a manicheaen conceptualization of the world works quite well; shorn of the religion, a clear black and white, good and evil, right and wrong philosophy can exist, and is necessary for good conduct in society. Moral relativism is one of the greatest evils of the past four decades. I am as a-religious as someone can get, but I hate postmodernism and moral relativism with some considerable pride, and therefore any attempt to paint the world in "shades of gray" to me, bluntly, will be met only with contempt.

And if the first scenario is true, it just displays incredible incompetence on so many levels that I don't think it's likely. If they've got some classified gas in some secret old storehouse, there will be a record somewhere about what it contains and whether there is an antidote and what it is. They claimed it was standard anesthetic, which is an out and out lie, and they've refused to name the gas, or tell anything about it. They're protecting something from their chemical weapons program and don't give a shit about a few hundred bystanders.

Besides, they knew what the likely effects were going to be. Gas poisoning is a question of dosage, and they knew the people in there were weak from lack of food and water. This whole affair stinks on many levels, and shit happened.

Uhm, this is a government where an oil refinery could be 'built' during the Khruschev regime - officially, that is - run up until Gorbachev, reporting production of varying levels, sometimes meeting quotas, sometimes exceeding them, with a full management staff, one man after the other taking over the post of running it - and the oil refinery was never actually built! Post soviet-era Russia is recovering from that level of combined corruption and incompetence, and it will be for a long, long time.


I'll answer more later when I'm coherent, and maybe slightly calm.

[Edi]

What I'm just saying is that technical violations of the CWB treaty happen all the time, which are pushed under the carpet by legal excuses

I have little patience and less tolerance for legal excuses that twist the letter of the law with the purpose of ignoring the spirit of the law.

Think about what the Russians consider Chechnya for a moment, okay?

I know what they consider it. A province. Just like they considered the Baltic states provinces. All four (Chechnya and the three Baltic states) went independent in 1991. In all of them the state of affairs could have been called an insurrection. There was a huge international outcry when the Russians used tanks to roll over protesters in Riga and Vilnius, and the Russians eventually withdrew. They didn't do anything about Chechnya in 1991, but only in 1994, three years later! And at the same time Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and all these other places broke away from Russia and became indpendent. So why not Chechnya as well? Wouldn't be for the fact that there is (or rather was) an oil pipeline running through there?

I actually take offense to that comment in the extreme, because I've been called a Turkophile before, and greatly admire the accomplishments of the Turkish people, and the long and storied history of the Ottoman Empire. It's a massively inaccurate comparison as you strive to tar your opponent with the brush you're blackened with.

I certainly think that a lot of the Muslim world is locked in a cycle of barbaric primitivism, but not all of it, and I can admire the achievements of even those regions.

Take offense or not as you like, but you might have an idea of why I find your talk in our previous conversations offensive. I recognize the evil that such hate, discrimination and blanket generalisation can lead to, and I pointed it out with an example you'd be hard put to ignore. You've praised Ataturk and the Turkish people rather effusively in those previous debates, but excepting them, you paint the rest of the Muslim world with the same brush I use on the Russians. You do acknowledge exceptions, but one always has to ask you for clarification on them first, you generally don't point them out from the outset.

The whole point of that thing was to point out that Russian or Chechen, Christian or Muslim, Turk or whatever else, they are all human! And also to point out how overbroad generalisations and our own prejudices can turn us into monsters. I've called you a monster before because of the methods you've proposed to secularise the Muslim world, and with good reason. It's because I recognise the same capability in myself with regard to Russians. I have to remind myself that they are people too, and that all of them cannot be held collectively responsible for the fuckups their oligarchic leadership makes. I've tried to say this same to you with regard to Muslims, even the Saudi Arabians, so far to no effect, but perhaps it will now sink in. Do you now understand about the cauldron of hate I talked about earlier?

Well, obviously. Russia has a nominally functional democracy and a flat income tax. If a dictator took over the USA tommorow I'd flee to Russia - God I'd love a flat income tax.

Key word is nominally. As their neighbors, we have a constant window into what's happening there, and you'd probably not like it. Besides, you'd be better off coming to Finland. Better services and there's a tax ceiling for foreigners that levels off at 35%, no matter how much you earn. Up until that point it follows the progressive model, but 35% is the limit.

Finland, however, is most assuredly mainstream European. It's not surprising that I have both Turkish and Russian friends, who both live in the USA, and they are friends with each other as well - While at the same time I cannot get along with you.

I've also got Turkish friends. Not here, but people from Turkey I met in England years ago. I liked them, they were easygoing, outspoken, open and fun to be around. I've had Russian coworkers, and there was nothing wrong with them. My uncle's wife is Russian, and I've met some of their Russian friends. There's nothing wrong with them either, I got along with them quite well. Key is, that was personal, face to face, so I could see the person behind the nationality, instead of just something generic to put a convenient label on. The reason the two of us don't get along is that our sense of the workings of this world and our political affiliations, as well as our morals, are so different, and neither one is willing to back down. I find many of your views callous, abhorrent and immoral, some of them also delusional, and you find many of mine spineless, morally relativistic, naive and foolish. Despite differences of opinion, we could at least get along failry civilly, up until I showed the same sort of callousness that you display pretty offhandedly, but toward a group that you identify with.

I have no anti-Muslim agenda. My only agenda, if anything, would be to restore the supremacy of the current Turkish conceptualization of Islam to the Muslim world, that is to say, secularism.

The means you suggest for the prosecution of that agenda and the way you present them puts you in the anti-Muslim camp. Your reasons may be different, but they just take you to the same end coordinates by a different route.

Well, the Chechens refused to work through the democratic government of Russia. Why should we have sympathy for them? If they win, it's pretty clear now they'll end up Islamist, besides that. They're simply traitors against a democratically elected government, and the ones caught with guns in their hands get the bullet to the back of the head they receive. In fact, it's even legal in the Geneva Conventions if they're not in uniform.

So by the same token the Red Army would have been justified in pacifyingthe separatist provinces of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the same way they have done to Chechnya and anyone who resisted was a traitor who could have been shot on sight unless they were in uniform (which would have taken some doing considering they didn't have armed forces of their own at the time). Get itthrough to your head that the circumstances during the time they went independent (in 1991) were anything but usual, since the Soviet Union was breaking up at the time. They had a government of their own, armed forces of their own, what the hell do you think the Russian army went up against in 1994? After the death of Dudayev, they first elected another leader (Yandarbiyev, wasn't it?), and later Aslan Mashadov. When Russia invaded again, they went against a de facto independent Chechnya, and they have refused any negotiations of any sort with Mashadov since. And Mashadov is a moderate. Especially after the death of Khattab, the Islamist Chechen groups have lost support, and they aren't too popular with the general population either if news reports here are to be believed. Don't lay the blame only on the Chechens, the Russians share at least an equal amount.

Actually, I think a manicheaen conceptualization of the world works quite well; shorn of the religion, a clear black and white, good and evil, right and wrong philosophy can exist, and is necessary for good conduct in society.

Yes, shorn of religion, and that places us squarely in a fantasy land that has nothing to do with reality. I deal with the real world in this respect, not fantasy, and that's why the religion has to be factored in and worked with or around, not bulled through.

Moral relativism is one of the greatest evils of the past four decades. I am as a-religious as someone can get, but I hate postmodernism and moral relativism with some considerable pride

Very, very few morals are absolute. In general, the one that says causing harm to people is bad is about as absolute as you can get, but even that has exceptions, it's better to cause harm to someone than to allow him to harm, say, a thousand people. The problems usually lie in looking where to draw the line, because real world situations are rarely completely black and white.

therefore any attempt to paint the world in "shades of gray" to me, bluntly, will be met only with contempt.

And you can rest assured that any attempt to portray the real world in absolute terms where one side is completely black and the other completely pure and white, where there only exist absolute good and absolute evil, will be met with equal, utter contempt. Absolute good and absolute evil are concepts that might be well in their place in a discussion of philosophy, but they have bo place when dealing with real world problems.

Uhm, this is a government where an oil refinery could be 'built' during the Khruschev regime - officially, that is - run up until Gorbachev, reporting production of varying levels, sometimes meeting quotas, sometimes exceeding them, with a full management staff, one man after the other taking over the post of running it - and the oil refinery was never actually built! Post soviet-era Russia is recovering from that level of combined corruption and incompetence, and it will be for a long, long time.

And also a government that is heir to such traditions as forced labor camps for those who didn't follow the official party line and dared express independent thought, as well as mass-deportations, covering up bioweapon fuckups where people got killed and so on, and those sort of traditions are also still going strong. Whichever version is true, it isn't very flattering.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That post was rather hotly said, and with me tired no less - I shouldn't have sent it, and I hope you'll forgive me for what I said to you in it.

Basically, uhm.. I can see that we have very fundamental differences in opinion about the Muslim world, and even about our own approaches. I see mine as being fundamentally humanitarian, even if millions of people are killed in the process, because the living conditions, industrial, legal, societal, governmental, on every area, would be instantly improved; women, religious, and other minorities would gain equal rights in the aftermath, even if it would take several decades for it to become a reality (Following the Japanese model, again).

Essentially, I think that engaging in a war to overthrow their governments and rebuild their nations on western lines would be doing them a favour, and one I wish we didn't have to waste time doing, but the fact that they're so eager to spread their fanaticism instead of keeping it to themselves is going to force us to do.

And I guess that illustrates some pretty fundamental differences in how we view the world, that I highly doubt we could get around even if I met you in person and we debated for a couple months! There's a different outlook there; and I'll grant you that mine could easily be seen as Neo-Imperialist or Neo-Colonialist or whatever you want to call it.

But then, you may think that colonialism did a lot of harm to certain portions of the world, while I think that without it they'd still be running around killing each other with pointy sticks and unable to read or write (Yes, I'm talking about Africa. We can debate the effect on India some other time if you like). Now they have AKs and they can read and write, and, oh, they have modern medicine, at least in some quantities. Of course, I think the colonial powers pulled out too soon, before those countries were ready for independence, and that's why a lot of the problems exist.

(The argument that the borders cut across traditional tribal boundaries and this causes the problems is BS - The colonial powers went to war with tribes, or native kingdoms, and conquered them one at a time, and so the colonies were amalgations of cohesive tribal regions or kingdoms and only in vary rare situations to redistributions happen that changed this.)

I'm going on this tangent, of course, to illustrate what I suspect to be a difference. An important one, I think, because the USA has really become an Empire. One on the Periclean Athenian model, but still an Empire. And so what I'm really discussing is how to go about a policy of Imperialism that would make the world an ideal place for our economy to prosper, and eliminate things that would make our economic concepts and our capitalist culture falter, or be threatened.

The USA is starting to realize the obligations of Empire; and it is only natural that we attract the envy and the hate of the whole world - with rare exception - when we take up the mantle from England. And so I think the difference in thought between us and Europe, a land of declined Empires and states that never had them, is becoming steadily more apparent.

As for this entire debate on the chemical weaponry, let's settle it with this:

http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... =639.topic

There's the thread in question on David and Stu's board; you can browse it without joining. There are rather considerable differences of opinion, and initially David condemned the Russians as harshly as you did (Which shocked me).

But once we got looking at things, well, some interesting facts have started to come out over the entire course of the scenario and the aftermath. I do suggest you read every single post, and in a tree-format.

Apparently there were instructions to the hospitals to give the hostages an antidote to opiates - But this is effective only 3-5 minutes after exposure. So the gas may have been an opiate, and the casualties among the hostages may have been suffered not due to a lack of an antidote, but simply failure to get them to the hospitals in time to administer the antidote. This is discussed in two of Stens' posts.

[Colonel Olrik]

Finland, however, is most assuredly mainstream European. It's not surprising that I have both Turkish and Russian friends, who both live in the USA, and they are friends with each other as well - While at the same time I cannot get along with you. Europe has set her own course, and I suspect that Turkey and Russia will never be a part of it, all claims and designs to the contrary duly considered.

One day, I would really love to debate if Turkey and Russia should properly be considered European. To me it's not an entirely settled matter.

Is the E.U supposed to expand to Asia? should we? If Turkey is a candidate, why not eventually Iraq (they border, after all).

I'm not saying they're not (I haven't even settled that for myself), and there are many good reasons why Turkey should be a member of the E.U.
But, then again, there are good reasons it should not.

[Bob McDob]

Current death toll is 117 hostages with several hundred more still in hospital and an undetermined number of those in intensive care. All but one was killed by gas exposure. Don't be surprised if the death toll rises.

The Russians should start avenging their losses by gunning down Chechen children. 1000:1 seems a fair exchange rate: every one of them killed young is one fewer potential martyr for Allah.

Although we all share your frustration and feelings of impotency, it would be appreciable if you would refrain from stupidity in this matter.

[Edi]

No problem, Marina. This sort of debates can bring up pretty heated responses when somebody gets a little worked up. At least you back up everything you say, unlike some people I've seen elsewhere, which gives a basis for debate instead of just mudslinging. You're right about our differences of opinion and world view being unreconcilable, the premises we build them on are, even if they have common roots, mutually exclusive.

I'll grant you that mine could easily be seen as Neo-Imperialist or Neo-Colonialist or whatever you want to call it.

It looks like that, yes. Not that I couldn't be utterly ruthless if the occasion required, but so far I don't see that things are that bad.

On the harm that colonialism did, yes, there was harm, but what's done is done, and we can keep asking what if until the end of time and we still won't know how it would have turned out. I also see the grounds for another fruitless exchange here. Well, maybe not entirely, but the rewards are hardly proportional to the time spent on it right now. Another time?

The argument that the borders cut across traditional tribal boundaries and this causes the problems is BS - The colonial powers went to war with tribes, or native kingdoms, and conquered them one at a time, and so the colonies were amalgations of cohesive tribal regions or kingdoms and only in vary rare situations to redistributions happen that changed this.

Traditional tribal boundaries hardly ran in a ruler-straight line for hundreds of miles and the fact that populations belonging to a single tribal group are found in several different countries and across borders in Africa shoots down that argument. The colonial powers went to war with tribes one at a time, but when the former colonies went independent, forming countries such as Mali, Algeria and others, especially in western Africa, the cohesive tribal regions got split up between the newly formed countries and the pieces joined with splinters from other regions. That makes for a very fertile ground for ethnic disputes, violence and civil war, especially if there is poverty, corruption and favoritism in the government that's supposed to rule over such a divided nation. If the borders ran differently, along the old tribal boundaries and with maybe two or three cohesive tribal regions to each state, things could be, if not entirely different, at least less fractious.

I'm going on this tangent, of course, to illustrate what I suspect to be a difference. An important one, I think, because the USA has really become an Empire. One on the Periclean Athenian model, but still an Empire. And so what I'm really discussing is how to go about a policy of Imperialism that would make the world an ideal place for our economy to prosper, and eliminate things that would make our economic concepts and our capitalist culture falter, or be threatened.

The USA is starting to realize the obligations of Empire; and it is only natural that we attract the envy and the hate of the whole world - with rare exception - when we take up the mantle from England. And so I think the difference in thought between us and Europe, a land of declined Empires and states that never had them, is becoming steadily more apparent.

The US may have the power of an empire, but always in the past empires that forcibly subjugated others to their will eventually fell because they overextended themselves and made too many enemies. The US could afford to walk more softly than it does and yet keep the big stick ready, but the problem is that it tends to swing the stick first. It also cares little for other people's interests unless there is a clear advantage for the US, and if concern for those others can be dispensed with altogether, then that's likely to happen. Would be more profitable on the long run to encourage relationships where all parties gain, even if the absolute maximum isn't achieved. That sort of thing fosters goodwill instead of resentment. It also often requires a lot of political risk taking at home because people are greedy and shortsighted.

As for envy and so forth, I can't speak for the French and the Brits and other Europeans, or even other Finns, but I'm not envious or jealous of the US. Your prosperity does not diminish mine, unless you directly take from me without giving anything in return, and you're not doing that to Finland. However, there are many areas of the world where the balance is far more lopsided in US favor and it is advantageous to the US in the short term for the status quo to continue. That's the sort of thing that sows seeds of discontent and resentment.

About chemical weapons, news reports here were that the Russians possibly used an opiate based gas that would at least technically not be a violation of existing treaties, so that's that. Depends on how you interpret existing treaties and conventions and whether you pay more attention to their spirit than the legalese.

Edi

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

The CW used could have been a nervous system depressant, kinda like super-chloroform. Knock them all out and pick up the pieces. But something screwed up and they lost people. That's why we have specialist anesthesist (sp?)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... c&index=76

Just to complete the discussion, and this article being posted seems to seal it up. Apparently it was an aerosol variant of etorphine. I should note, however, that the article is wrong in one respect. Naloxone was issued at the hospitals to the patients, or at least the doctors were told to give it.