The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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.
The brits would have gone in, contained and not killed any of the hostage takers... no deaths and the tea lady wouldn't have spilled a drop of tea brought in just behind the troops for a nice cuppa after.
Hmmmm bias?
> 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."
maybe so, but the one under Bush eclipsed the others.
although that may simply be down to news saturation. hell if it was me i'd have flown the thing into the statue of liberty, fewer lives lost and the ultimate american symbol lying in ruins, a win-win situation (well, as much as you can get in matters of this nature)
> 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.
no, it would not work.
firstly, the west will NEVER wipe the debt, it's a political and economic stranglehold on eastern countries. Secondly, to offer such a thing on the assumption that a country will prove no future hassle would be ridiculous as there are simply no guarantees, any given country could agree to the terms and then simply not comply once the debt is lifted.
it's a nice idea mate, but it's just not going to work :(
> 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.
I can't see it stopping until...
> I have absolutely no sympathy for causes that take such action as
> this.
Why though? While these people who took the school and murdered children obviously fought for their cause in an entirely wrong way, it doesn't necessarily mean that the cause itself is wrong. There may well be many more people fighting for this cause in entirely acceptable ways, but the media only has time for it when something terrible like this happens.
Face it, the only time the media covers any kind of protest is when it causes a major nuisance (ie. people going on strike and causing airlines / fire services / whatever to be disrupted) or when it is a violent protest like this one.
> maybe so, but the one under Bush eclipsed the others.
> although that may simply be down to news saturation. hell if it was
> me i'd have flown the thing into the statue of liberty, fewer lives
> lost and the ultimate american symbol lying in ruins, a win-win
> situation (well, as much as you can get in matters of this nature)
Yes, because terrorists really care about civilian casulties, don't they?
*shakes head*
> 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.
I thought they were forced to drink Urine.
But having said that, by own words I acknowledge that violence and hatred breeds the same. What sort of violence and hatred must have been shown to the Chechen rebels to make them behave this way?
There are never any easy answers. I remain constantly disappointed with the behaviour of my species.