Silencer 0 Posted January 21, 2002 should they help with the war on terriosim? I can see why russia dosen't want to help in terms of with military force. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fenix83 0 Posted January 21, 2002 Hum, Russia is invading Tchetchenia and call their citizen "terrorist". India is planning to invade Cashmir and say they're just getin some terro camp. Terrorism is just a reason to invade another country. So what do you think when you say "war on terrorism" ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silencer 0 Posted January 21, 2002 yes russia is in war with chenueya.I read that american interfeered in th war there before sept 11.I guess american is a cold war mod... russia allready been to war with afghanistan for 10 years they probably know how the terriosts act in there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pete 1 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @ Jan. 21 2002,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">russia allready been to war with afghanistan for 10 years they probably know how the terriosts act in there.<span id='postcolor'> do not mix terrorism and guerilla. terrorism is something you can do alone, anytime, anywhere... but if you didnt mean that afgans/mujahedin is terrorists but meant that the russians had there fair share of terrorism against them, then you are right......the war in checnya (the latest one) started after a few houses in russia were blown up in terror-strikes (most likely), some 400 russians died. but i think that reacting on terrorism with force (attack a whole nation, of course striking the terrorists only is good)only does more damage than good, and it certainly does not end the terrorism. you could pick up any major conflict in the world and see that reacting to terrorism with extreme force (army) is a dead-end. the french lost algeria after fighting the terrorists using torture and the army...they actually almost beated the terror organisation, but they got the people against them. israel - palestine?...many palestinians do support the terrorists, why?......possibly becouse they have israeli tanks roaming the streets and buldozers razing there homes. usa - afganistan...al-queda is still around, it will always be, thousands of afgan civilians are dead, nothing really changed..usa is still as threatened as it was before the war, and im sure something will happen again soon enough. terrorism is really bad, but it gets larger support if the affected nation over-reacts and punishes more than the quilty ones. in my opinion, terrorists should be treated as criminals...and therefore not fought by the army, but by a policeforce (international one, of course)...since most, if not all nations, are against terrorism, it would not be impossible to create a policeforce without nationality, something like the un..with the right to enter a nation and co-operate with local police to find and capture the terrorists. its silly, naive..childish to even think that a army can end a terrorist movement, it has failed everytime it has been tried, it will fail in the future also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thehamster 0 Posted January 21, 2002 During Russia war with Afghanistan I wouldn’t call the people-fighting terrorist I would call them freedom fighters. Of course funded by the US. You reap what you sow. Why should Russia bother help they are practically a 3rd world country the economy in shambles have the country ran by the Russia Mafia. The army useless for anything there a joke in the play of world power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thehamster @ Jan. 21 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">During Russia war with Afghanistan I wouldn’t call the people-fighting terrorist I would call them freedom fighters. Of course funded by the US. You reap what you sow. Why should Russia bother help they are practically a 3rd world country the economy in shambles have the country ran by the Russia Mafia. The army useless for anything there a joke in the play of world power.<span id='postcolor'> I wouldnt wanna mess with their ICBM's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
762WorldOrder 0 Posted January 21, 2002 "usa - afganistan...al-queda is still around, it will always be, thousands of afgan civilians are dead, nothing really changed..usa is still as threatened as it was before the war" Al-Queda is not around in the capacity they used to be. Sure, they're still around, but their organization is in complete disarray, their main leaders dead, caught, or so busy trying to hide they don't have time to come up with new terrorist plans. And besides that, if you're a young, impressionable Arab and you know that being in Al-Queda makes you an international target, are you going to be as likely to join up? I'm sure Al-Queda's recruitment has suffered as well. "you could pick up any major conflict in the world and see that reacting to terrorism with extreme force (army) is a dead-end." Funny, you must not be watching the same newscasts and reading the same newspapers I am. The Taliban no longer exist, and anyone in Al-Queda is either dead, captured or running into other countries. Army or police force, it doesn't matter. Terrorism will always be around because you simply cannot root out every person willing to kill innocents to achieve their ends. It doesn't matter what kind of badge you slap on your police/military force, at the end of the day, SOMEONE (army, police, whatever) has to go in and get them. But you shouldn't say its a "dead end" simply because it doesn't neutralize the problem 100%. There is no 100% effective solution, be it diplomatic, militaristic, or otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 21, 2002 7.62 W.O., I couldn't agree more. I believe that the Russians have already offered assistance in the form of troops and vehicles for the "war" in Afghanistan. But with one exception: the U.S. had to fork over the ca$h. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thehamster 0 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Jan. 21 2002,18:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">During Russia war with Afghanistan I wouldn’t call the people-fighting terrorist I would call them freedom fighters. Of course funded by the US. You reap what you sow. Why should Russia bother help they are practically a 3rd world country the economy in shambles have the country ran by the Russia Mafia. The army useless for anything there a joke in the play of world power.<span id='postcolor'> I wouldnt wanna mess with their ICBM's  <span id='postcolor'> There is a good chance that 75% of them wouldn't work I know 25% is enought to blitz a large chunk of the world but all the same there really have no power in the play of the world any more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmike 0 Posted January 21, 2002 The americans and russians work very closely with each other in peace keeping in Bosnia and kosovo. They have mixed the men together and it works very well apart from the amaricans dont seem to speak much russian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thehamster 0 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Jan. 21 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The americans and russians work very closely with each other in peace keeping in Bosnia and kosovo. They have mixed the men together and it works very well apart from the amaricans dont seem to speak much russian <span id='postcolor'> Yep they also luted secrets from a shot down American Stealth Bomber. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wobble 1 Posted January 21, 2002 I dont think many people would agree with the way the Ruskies 'hunt terrorists' especially if they did it the way the did last time.. I.E. chase a few into a city and then shell the entire city.... but maby some troops to wander around and 'peacekeep' wouldent be too bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 22, 2002 "in my opinion, terrorists should be treated as criminals...and therefore not fought by the army, but by a policeforce" And what if there's some country which protects terrorists, like Afganistan when it was under taliban rule? Should we just forgive them (terrorists)? I think that it is naive to think that terrorism can be fought completely without armies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted January 22, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Funny, you must not be watching the same newscasts and reading the same newspapers I am.  The Taliban no longer exist, and anyone in Al-Queda is either dead, captured or running into other countries.<span id='postcolor'> Hey Worldorder! Still using the same arguments I see, well so do I, even if not of the same kind as yours  We over here (Europe) most certainly don't get the same news input as you. The ways of 'manufacturing consent' is as you probably know quite different dependning on where you dwell. Tell me, are your US media allowed to criticize the war on terrorism freely yet, or are they still too afraid of losing customers/viewers if they do? (the way 'freedom of speech' works in reality). And do you know if this Arabian news channel (through which Bin Ladens messages came) have had any sucess in starting broadcasting in the USA (they planned to do so some time ago)? Also, have the USA advaced any in their plans to start broadcasting radio channels in about the entire the muslim world? The media war goes on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrLaggy 0 Posted January 22, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep they also luted secrets from a shot down American Stealth Bomber.<span id='postcolor'> I believe you're talking about the Chinese, as I'm almost certain they were the ones who got the wreckage of the mini-Stealth Bomber (the USAF can call it a fighter as much as they like, but in my mind if a plane can only carry bombs and can't dogfight it's a bomber, no matter what it may be called). Considering that the mini-Stealth Bomber was developed based on Russian research they probably didn't have a lot to learn from it, though the electronics and coatings might be useful to them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrLaggy 0 Posted January 22, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Supi Suomalainen @ Jan. 22 2002,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what if there's some country which protects terrorists, like Afganistan when it was under taliban rule? Should we just forgive them (terrorists)? I think that it is naive to think that terrorism can be fought completely without armies.<span id='postcolor'> If you have evidence that a citizen of a foreign country is engaging in terrorist attacks then you provide that evidence to the government of the foreign country... and then only consider military force if they refuse to hand them over. The Taliban stated that they were willing to hand over or try bin Laden if the US government would provide evidence that he was responsible for the WTC attack; so if the US government had any convincing evidence they wouldn't have needed to invade. Even now they seem to have only the most circumstantial evidence. Seriously, the world would have been vastly better off if Bush had given the FBI free reign to investigate the WTC attacks and waited for them to provide convincing evidence of the culprits before acting: we've now pissed off much of the Muslim world and created whole swathes of new potential terrorists, whereas if they'd gone to the Afghan government and the UN with clear proof that bin Laden was responsible then almost no-one would have complained no matter what the US government had done to get him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Bibber 0 Posted January 22, 2002 Fuck, i really hate it when Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Putin, G W Bush accuse anyone for being "terrorists". Putin: Has thrown Chechen males from 6 to 65 into concentration camps. In the First Chechen War, 1994-1996, Russia killed 100,000 Chechen civilians, razed much of the small country, and, in an act of monumental terrorism, scattered 17 million anti-personnel land mines across the tiny nation(not to mention women and childeren who where raped in BMP's etc.). G W Bush: Did you know that the US actually supported the terroristic activities of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets and their collaborators. When Bin Laden later turned against "us", now the US attempted to kill him by bombing Afghanistan. This "cowboy" still thinks we live in the 60's or something. Wich still thinks that countries who basicly disagree with his views are evil ruthless terrorists. "We" bombed Iraq after it invaded Kuwait(guess what, "we" were the one who was selling plutonium and all that other crap to gas the Kurds and bomb innocent people), yet we supported Saddam Hussein with money and arms when he warred with Iran. In contrast, we continued to monetarily and militarily support Israel even after it invaded Lebanon and killed tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians. We support the Zionist state even though it tortures thousands of political prisoners in its jails. American support enabled Israel to ethnically cleanse itself of 700,000 Palestinians. (i have lots of more things to say about the US goverment, i don't want to start a flamewar if you know what i mean) BTW: Jihad does not mean "holy war" it means struggle. Ariel Sharon: one of the world's leading most brutal and bloodthirsty terrorists. Not to mention the crimes Sharon committed against humanity, killing of of 2,000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Just because the HAMAS or some other terrorist organisation blew up a pizza tent doesn't gives Israel the right to occupy and invade more land and destroy goverment buildings and kill childeren who only have a stone. Belive me i have seen some terrible pics of a Palestine baby with a blown-off head. Yet they cannot understand why so many Muslims see America as their enemy. Fuck society! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silencer 0 Posted January 22, 2002 did you know that in the war in chenuya american really interfeered in that war with russia.They said russia is like terriosts,before sept 11 the US was still in a cold war mod against russia and never even thought about looking at terriosts in the mideast.after this aattack american stopped messing around in chenuya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thehamster 0 Posted January 22, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Jan. 22 2002,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep they also luted secrets from a shot down American Stealth Bomber.<span id='postcolor'> I believe you're talking about the Chinese, as I'm almost certain they were the ones who got the wreckage of the mini-Stealth Bomber (the USAF can call it a fighter as much as they like, but in my mind if a plane can only carry bombs and can't dogfight it's a bomber, no matter what it may be called). Considering that the mini-Stealth Bomber was developed based on Russian research they probably didn't have a lot to learn from it, though the electronics and coatings might be useful to them.<span id='postcolor'> No I’m pretty sure that in Kosovo a US stealth bomber was shot down and the Russia got to the wreck first and looted it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
