The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching this on the news (from about 10:30-14:00) and i have to say i found it rather exciting, obviously it was a terrible ordeal for everyone involved. Especially the poor kids that were practically naked, apparently when they asked for a drink they were told to strip, their clothes were doused with water and they were told to suck the moisture out. Pretty grim stuff.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Near the end of the special show an ITN cameraman actually got into the gym where everyone had been held, the roof had collapsed (chechen rebels had rigged it with 14 explosive charges) while people were still inside and apparently some 100 bodies lay inside.
The chechens then fled to some buildings nearby and were holding a sustained firefight with the russian military.
Page:
What Light said. Attack breeds attack breeds attack.......etc.
Read something about something before opening your mouth please (to Foszy and anylike him/her).
Anyway, very nasty.
Read something about something before opening your mouth please (to Foszy and anylike him/her).
Anyway, very nasty.
cookie monster wrote:
> Paradox: wrote:
> Are Chechyna (dont know the correct spelling)
> wanting independence but Russia are reluctant to grant it because
> yet
> again they will appear weak in the history books?
>
> Well, sort of but there is more. Putin would be scared to allow
> Chechnya independence incase Al-Quaida set up operations there.
OR It's becuase Putin doesn't want to let some tiny republic go just in case any more of Russias' once great empire falls to bits - it's considered incredibly important in Russia (apparantly) that the Russian land remains as it was.
> Paradox: wrote:
> Are Chechyna (dont know the correct spelling)
> wanting independence but Russia are reluctant to grant it because
> yet
> again they will appear weak in the history books?
>
> Well, sort of but there is more. Putin would be scared to allow
> Chechnya independence incase Al-Quaida set up operations there.
OR It's becuase Putin doesn't want to let some tiny republic go just in case any more of Russias' once great empire falls to bits - it's considered incredibly important in Russia (apparantly) that the Russian land remains as it was.
Light wrote:
> One side commits an atrocity which they justify by pointing to the
> atrocity committed against them, so they have yet another atrocity
> committed and....
>
> Well, you get the idea. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop
> partaking of it. Sooner every nation realises this, the sooner the
> terror stops.
That is true, in theory, but in practice, one of the 'parties' involved, i.e. a country ect... would have to stop their actions first.
That 'parties' citizens would not be pleased with this would they? It would seem more like in-action, and an extremly risky move, than the solution to the problem. And your assuming that the terrorist cell sees that the other country is trying to make the situation better, and would stop in return. Where as it may be seen as a weakness, and use the opportunity to attack.
It could easily go either way, and the public is usually more concerned with the short term.
Take the US war on terror, it may not solve terrorism in the long term, i'm no fool, i see that, but as one US citizen told me, and i quote:
"Before the 'War on Terror', under Clinton, there were 5 attacks on US soil. Since Bush and his War on Terror, there has only been one."
So from an American perspecive, the War on Terror seems to be working, and so will be a bit reluctant to just stop everything and hope Al Quida leaves them alone. I agree, your idea would probably, or at least go a toward, stopping terrorism, however, for the US, a nation filled with the post 9/11 paranoids, can you see why they do what they do?
> One side commits an atrocity which they justify by pointing to the
> atrocity committed against them, so they have yet another atrocity
> committed and....
>
> Well, you get the idea. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop
> partaking of it. Sooner every nation realises this, the sooner the
> terror stops.
That is true, in theory, but in practice, one of the 'parties' involved, i.e. a country ect... would have to stop their actions first.
That 'parties' citizens would not be pleased with this would they? It would seem more like in-action, and an extremly risky move, than the solution to the problem. And your assuming that the terrorist cell sees that the other country is trying to make the situation better, and would stop in return. Where as it may be seen as a weakness, and use the opportunity to attack.
It could easily go either way, and the public is usually more concerned with the short term.
Take the US war on terror, it may not solve terrorism in the long term, i'm no fool, i see that, but as one US citizen told me, and i quote:
"Before the 'War on Terror', under Clinton, there were 5 attacks on US soil. Since Bush and his War on Terror, there has only been one."
So from an American perspecive, the War on Terror seems to be working, and so will be a bit reluctant to just stop everything and hope Al Quida leaves them alone. I agree, your idea would probably, or at least go a toward, stopping terrorism, however, for the US, a nation filled with the post 9/11 paranoids, can you see why they do what they do?
Light wrote:
> Jesus Christ, sometimes I absolutely despair...
You're not alone.
> Jesus Christ, sometimes I absolutely despair...
You're not alone.
The news described it as “embarrassing” for Putin. Yes. That's one way to descibe it.
It's the forever confusing debate over freedom and dictatorship.
Technically America and the west want full control over everywhere else.
It's all just crazy talk.
Countries are supposed to be in charge of what is in there countries, countries are blamed if a terrorist network exists in that country. It's not fair, these countries aren't bloody America or the UK. They don't have the money because they owe us so much money!
Would it not work for America and other western states to offer a deal. We'll wipe the debt if you can keep your country under control and remove any terrorist cells.
When I heard that just 4 of the 20 hostage takers survived I was somehow thought to myself how those 16 deserved everything they got.
It's amazing how evil people can be.
The UK parties are worried about low turnouts to their elections.
For me I'm happy. When there's less pride in your own country and party then the desire to shoot others from other parties and religions is reduced.
By careing less about the driving forces in society then less people will want to fight eachother for pretty much pointless reasons. The sad thing is it is this lack of interest which could cause dictators and the such like to take control.
Technically America and the west want full control over everywhere else.
It's all just crazy talk.
Countries are supposed to be in charge of what is in there countries, countries are blamed if a terrorist network exists in that country. It's not fair, these countries aren't bloody America or the UK. They don't have the money because they owe us so much money!
Would it not work for America and other western states to offer a deal. We'll wipe the debt if you can keep your country under control and remove any terrorist cells.
When I heard that just 4 of the 20 hostage takers survived I was somehow thought to myself how those 16 deserved everything they got.
It's amazing how evil people can be.
The UK parties are worried about low turnouts to their elections.
For me I'm happy. When there's less pride in your own country and party then the desire to shoot others from other parties and religions is reduced.
By careing less about the driving forces in society then less people will want to fight eachother for pretty much pointless reasons. The sad thing is it is this lack of interest which could cause dictators and the such like to take control.
There were 40 hostage-takers and about 1,500 hostages.
They say that maybe 300 max would have been killed.
Think of what could have happened and what did happen, although this is horrible, it could have been so much worse.
There wasn't really going to be any other outcome to this than what happened, they were going to kill the kids no matter what...
They say that maybe 300 max would have been killed.
Think of what could have happened and what did happen, although this is horrible, it could have been so much worse.
There wasn't really going to be any other outcome to this than what happened, they were going to kill the kids no matter what...
is just too babaric of the hostage takers,look at what they did those innocent kids,infact people are heart less.
Dringo wrote:
> When I heard that just 4 of the 20 hostage takers survived I was
> somehow thought to myself how those 16 deserved everything they got.
But then again, most were probably suicidal fanatics anyway, whether they were strapped with bombs or not.
I see where you're coming from, but what about those 300 odd that DIDN'T get what they deserved?
It isn't balanced by a long, long shot.
> When I heard that just 4 of the 20 hostage takers survived I was
> somehow thought to myself how those 16 deserved everything they got.
But then again, most were probably suicidal fanatics anyway, whether they were strapped with bombs or not.
I see where you're coming from, but what about those 300 odd that DIDN'T get what they deserved?
It isn't balanced by a long, long shot.
I was in school when we heard that they had actaully been killed/injured (Until then it was just a hostage situation), but had it not been for the fact that we had been joking around moments before, a tear could have rolled down my cheek.
It's disgusting when terrorists take children, but, the siege shouldn't have happened. They should have waited. Negotiated (I know terrorists should not be negotiated with, but it didn't take a genius to realise they were serious), and then perhaps this wouldn't have happpened.
It's disgusting when terrorists take children, but, the siege shouldn't have happened. They should have waited. Negotiated (I know terrorists should not be negotiated with, but it didn't take a genius to realise they were serious), and then perhaps this wouldn't have happpened.
Page: