« loony pacifist of the day | Main | at the doctor's »

armchair quarterbacking: terrorist edition

Site of today: Weblog Action Center

armchair quartbacking: terrorist edition

With all the second guessing in the media regarding the gas used to help free the Russian hostages, I wonder if any one of the terrorism armchair quarterbacks have thought about what could have happened had the gas not been used.

Yes, perhaps the dosage was too high. Perhaps the antidote should have been available in a quicker fashion. Regardless, imagine what could have taken place had the authorities not used the gas. Imagine the headlines, the second guessing, the protests, if Putin did not take the action he did and the terrorists ended up blowing the theater to bits, killing every single hostage. Sample headline: Putin's Inaction Leads to 700 Deaths. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

There's something else the media and naysayers seem to be forgetting. It was the terrorists holding the hostages in that theater. Where is all the media outrage over this? Where is are the endless opinion pieces on how horrid it is that terrorists can sweep right in and cause such havoc? Where are the rallying cries to bring down every Chechen rebel and make them pay for what they did?

Nowhere. The media, especially the media right here in the U.S. - the same television outlets and newspapers that relegated the hostage story to third string so they could spend more time interviewing former serial killers or show videos of a tree stump being hauled away - all have lead articles about the gas. They are asking questions, demanding answers. They are villifying Putin, who is between that proverbial rock and hard place. Had he not used the gas, they would be villifying him anyhow.

Where is the outrage over the terrorists? And still, no one wants to refer to them as T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. Hostage takers. Rebels. Poor, misunderstood citizens who only wanted their complaints heard. For some unfathomable reason, the press would rather stick it to Putin that come down hard on these murderers.

At least someone is speaking sense:

The White House declined to criticize the rescue operation, making clear the Bush administration's view that blame for the deaths lay with the captors.

"The Russian government and the Russian people are victims of this tragedy, and the tragedy was caused as a result of the terrorists who took hostages and booby-trapped the building and created dire circumstances," spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday.

Almost every article I read is blaming Putin for the deaths of the hostages. Hello? Putin would not have had to make the decision if the terrorists did not take over the theater in the first place.

Why is the media so eager to protect terrorists? Why do they give more sympathy to the plight of our enemies than to the victims of our ememies? Has the idea of "root causes" so overtaken the mindset of the media that they fail to see the end result of those causes?

I've had enough of standing still and dragging feet. I've had enough of the apologists of the media who are afraid to use the word terrorist. I've had enough of reasoning and appeasing and negotiating. When will people realize that the only option to those ways of dealing with terrorism is none of the above?

Send a message to the evil, heartless, ruthless terrorists everywhere. Start with the biggest terrorist of them all. Drop the damn bombs already. Get the preamble to the war on terrorism overwith and move on to the real action.

Kill 'em all.

On the same subject: Safety Valve; feces flinging monkey; Samizdata; Emperor Misha, Glenn Reynolds (who sent me a nice Instalanche yesterday); Cato; silent running.


I so want to kiss you right now.

Everyone wants to "go steady" with russia:
america wants them to come over to their side on the iraq issue, and the weak-kneed EUniks want to shore up russian support to keep the bear in their court over their appeasing policy vis a vis iraq. hence the muted response to this and to whatever is going on in chechneya.
it's not who you know, it's who you blow!

what is the amourous basis on which you want to give this woman a kiss??
is it romantic or intellectual--and am i missing something??

You're beginning to scare me now.

What I wanted to know is, did anyone offer a cleaner, quicker way of getting the hostages out? Under that time constraint? My mum thinks they used the wrong gas, but otherwise it was the thing to do.

I'm ignoring issues of Chechnya and independence here, it's too complicated.

Personally, I think Putin probably made the right decision. However, had the Russian government been able to bring EMT's to the scene in preparation for treating the hostages when they were released (there was a shortage of doctors), and had the government informed medical personnel of the plan and the chemical used (they still refuse to relase that information), more lives would have been saved.

more curious, though, is that the Russian government won't reveal what gas they used not even to the medical community treating the 150 hostages that lie in serious to critical condition in Russian hospitals right now.

The reason? It's likely a gas that they are not allowed to have under peace accords with us. The same kind of chemical debilitating agents, weapons of mass destruction, that we're accusing other countries of posessing. Nobody is supposed to have them, yet we pick and choose who we actually care about. North Korea admits to having nuclear capabilities but we're not going to war with them, Russia has chemical weapons but we're not going to war with them. Iraq, well, we don't know what they got, so hell yeah we're going to war with them.

Confuses the holy hell out of me and that has nothing to do with Terrorists.

Frankie, that's none of your business.

> more curious, though, is that the Russian
> government won't reveal what gas they used

That's not curious to me. If you are a terrorist and you know the gas they are liable to use, you bring some antidote with you and the gas tactic is no longer effective. (There may be other reasons for them being secretive, but I'm sure my reason is one of them.)

> Russia has chemical weapons but we're not
> going to war with them

That's because they're too big to mess with. You can be sure the US would, for example, invade China and replace its leadership if it thought it could do it without losing NY and LA and probably the rest of the world in the process. It's practical imperialism.

I like the idea of Russian quietly, peacefully gassing everyone and then walking in and carrying everyone away to the hospital and then home or prison. It's a great shame that Russia instead clumsily killed so many of its own people -- more than would have died in a typical gun battle? -- and it's horrifying (if it's true; I trust no news) that Russian troops shot almost all of the unconscious terrorists. If they want to set an example to Chechens, summary execution is not the right one.


The Russians were correct to shoot the terrorists during the assualt, unconscious or not they were wearing explosives. With that many people at risk they really had no choice, one guy recovers enough to pull a pin and the game is over. The doctrine of virtually all assualt troops the world over is the same, strike hard, strike fast, no mercy. Prisoners are not the goal, they are an unintended result. From the training I recieved, in their place I would have shot everyone on the floor holding a weapon.

I understand that to someone who isn't used to seeing or thinking such things, it's horrible and barbaric. That it is,....It's also necessary, like putting down a mad dog. You hate it, you don't enjoy it, you just do it. If it makes you sqeamish, look away. Summary executions by the way, are not something that the Chechens need examples of considering their fondness for cutting the throats of Russian prisoners. The Russians could be as pure as Pollyanna, and it would make no difference.

they did the only thing they could do.

i'm trying so hard to ignore all of the monday morning quarterbacking. 9-11, the snipers, the theatre, all of it. it doesn't accomplish anything, and the "journalists" who insist on picking at these open wounds are just too ugly.

Bloody brilliant entry!

Michele, I'm with you. Those deaths were caused by terrorism: Plain and simple.

You go girl.

right on to putin... I getting right ready for us to get rid of all of them and make some examples out of them.

The Russians put a bullet to the heads of the gassed dirtbag muslim excrement as they laid passed out.

Go go go Putin...

Eeksy-Peeksy wrote: "...it's horrifying (if it's true; I trust no news) that Russian troops shot almost all of the unconscious terrorists. If they want to set an example to Chechens, summary execution is not the right one."

Wrong. If you are an Islamic terrorist whose only goal is to murder women and children for political purposes, you deserve to die.

I completely support Russia and Puttin's decision to make it clear to any other Islamofascist that if they try to murder any other unarmed women or child they'll die.

They won't get anything they want: they won't get Russian troops out of Chechnya, they won't get the American 'infidels' to change, they won't get to see Israel be destroyed, they won't get the Australians to stop using swimming pools in Bali.

They'll die, hopefully a slow and painful death.

Now if they stop murdering babies and stop the violence, we can then discuss peaceful solutions.

Until then, death to Islamic terrorists!