Posted on 10/25/2002 8:21:52 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Until it does, can you understand
my lack of faith?
Anyone disagree?
I do. The hospitalized hostages dying are mostly succumbing not to the effects of gunshot wounds, but to the aftereffects of the *sedative* gas used, apparantly a low dosage of the Russian binary Novochok-33 nerve agent. Indeed, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov has stated that casualties among the hospitalized hostages have reached 130+, and at least 30 more suffering aftereffects of the gas are still in critical condition.
And at that, the Russians saved all the kids taken hostage, and none of the foreign citizens [including at least three Americans] taken hostage were reported among those killed or hospitalized with serious injuries. 10 per cent casualties are indeed steep, but in line with what the Israelis were willing to accept duruing the Entebbe rescue, and were exceedingly grateful that they did not. And the Russians were MUCH more successful than were the American visitors to Iran at *Desert One* during the *Operation Eagle Claw* failed Iranian Embassy hostage rescue.
And did not continue for three weeks, like recent sniper activities in area of Capital of United States.
But you're right, this shouldn't be compared to *Eagle Claw* at Desert One. This action was successful- if not as cleanly done as Entebbe.
-archy-/-
Let me understand your position...
[2002] Terrorists sieze a building in the heart of Moscow [The capital of the Nation] and begin a standoff with Russian Authorities.
This is first compared to (Notice no hostages killed by American forces)Iranians taking Americans from the embassy in Tehran [in 1970 something]. Thousands of Miles from The United States. The PLO taking hostages (Notice one [1] hostage killed by the Israelis)to an airstrip in Uganda [In 1960 something]. Thousands of Miles from Israel, and now....it is comparable to a sniper driving around in a car in three different states, firing shots at civilians.
One of two things happening here...
A. You really are that stupid.
B. You have a hard on for the Russians.
Communism has it's useful idiots and willing fanatics also. Just as Islam's leaders and mullahs never deign to be suicide bombers themselves. They get other saps to do it for them.
Regarding the dead Christians in the Islamic world, yes, that's a lot of dead people. But more of them have either emigrated to the West or converted to Islam for safety. The body count doesn't come close to the Marxist death totals.
The thing about spec-op jobs is that the scenarios in each event are specific and unique, which is why they are reserved for the special forces. If they were not unique and demanding of elite operatives then instead of SAS being sent to a critical situation ordinary 'Bobbies' (Brit coppers) would be sent. The situations that ask for special operatives are highly unique occurences that require highly unique operatives.
As for the Moscow situation i highly doubt any special forces team from anywhere in the world could have done any better. Not the British SAS, nor the American Delta Teams, not the Israeli Sayeret teams, and not the French GIGN. All these teams have been created for operations like the one in Moscow, and each of them have past histories of total success, partial success (and some even total failure). However criticizing a spec-op group because of a botched job is silly because the situation was one that had no place for second guessing, and most of the times the special operatives are working with time and pressure constraints.
For example when the GIGN had to takeover the Airbus A300 in 1994 from Algerian terrorists. The GIGN were forced to rush in before schedule when the terrorists started killing hostages in their demand for fuel. There were 177 hostages in a plane, and obviously there were some casualties on the good side (including 4 GIGN operatives). But they did their job and the big majority of the hostages went home ...which means a success (the total number of terrorists were less than 10).
Same thing when the Israeli Sayeret (i believe it was Sayeret Mat'Kal) went in for the Entebbe raid in 1976. The Israelis managed to rescue the Israeli hostages, but at a loss of 3 hostages and 1 Sayeret operative (the total number of terrorists were 8).
As for the SAS their best day (known to the public) was 1980 when they handled the terrorists who had taken over the Iranian embassy in London demanding change in Iran.After ELEVEN WEEKS (almost 3 months) of negotiation the SAS decided to storm in (in those 11 weeks they had constructed a replica of the embassy and thus had almost 3 months of training). No hostages were killed in this case (and the Total number of terrorists was 6).
Now, in this Moscow situation there were around 50 terrorists. Fifty terrorists! Compare that number with the previous scenarios that had an average of around 7 terrorists. And the total number of hostages in the Moscow scenario was 750. Compare that with the above scenarios that had much fewer hostages. Also compare that in the Moscow case the Spetsgruppa al'fa special forces had to go in immediately because the Chechnyans had started murdering hostages ...and compare that with the SAS scenario where the SAS had trained for almost 3 months in a replica of the embassy.
And even think of the DELTA operation in 1980. Those brave Delta force men died when the thing got messed up before it even started due to the plane collusion! However you will notice that the special operation units of the world never criticized that operation because they know situations like that can easily go out of hand. There is usually a huge respect between spec-ops teams since they know how hard their job is.
Which is why seeing someone criticize the Russian effort (which was a huge success when you think of what they had to deal with), or seeing someone critique the Delta Force operation are both silly. I doubt the Russian spetsgruppa would have performed the Entebbe raid better than the Israeli Sayeret; I doubt the GIGN would have performed much better than the SAS operation in the embassy; and i doubt the Delta force would have perfomed better than the spetsgruppa alfa in the Moscow deal.
Comparing teams and criticizing them is just an exercise in folly. Although i am sorry many hostages died (90 at last estimate) i am certain that under the same situations, where the special-ops are forced to act immediately by terrorists slaying hostages, i doubt any spec-op team in the world would have done much better. Some may have saved 20 extra lives, others would have lost 10 extra. But the toll would have been more or less the same under the circumstances.
TC
Oh I completely disagree.
The Russians came in through established fields of fire after creating a diversion [on the ground and through the windows].
Bottomline....cheesy and ameteur.
Nothing personal it just is what it is.
I can appreciate how they used crawlspaces in order to position themselves for certain shots and I give them kudos for that as well as using an apparent sleeping agent [that may or may not be leading to hostage deaths] but they didnt breach any walls or come through the ceiling.
They had the schematics for the structures involved. That is a tremendous advantage especially in identifying weakspots in the actual structure and for isolating dead space [used to enter through]. If they properly used thermal imaging, heartbeat monitors, crawl space surveillance and even radar [yep] then they should've been able to identify the terrorists positions and monitor their movements and isolate certain terrorist protocols and habits.
When you do all of the above...all that remains is a small diversion [not a few grenades....I personally would've taken over their television and radio signals and performed a bogues breaking news event in which Osama Bin Laden was going to make a statement about the "Muslim Chechen Brothers and their Jihad in Moscow" in say ten minutes...that would've completely broke their defensive focus] followed by fast, coordinated, violent assault using calibrated force to take out terrorists with head shots. You put two shooters on the chics holding the demo and put three rounds [per Operator] in them. They held the hostages together in a central location...your initial focus is "immediately" securing them by coming through the walls and ceiling [and floor if possible]. From there you flow outward and take out the terrorists perimeter. What the snipers dont get, you're C or D teams [and security] will. The bigger the structure you are storming...the easier it is for you to find a weakness and harder for the terrorists to constantly defend [properly].
I wont speak for any of the units you mentioned but I guarantee you that Marine Corps FAST companies could've done a better job then the Russians did. And if we would've used the technics listed above...then the teams you listed would've also.
Maybe, But I believe it might be a couple of months or two before start "warming up" and critiquing themselves openly on an aar. My prayers for the victims families though,May God bless them at this time and keep them. VaBthang4...God Bless you neighbor stay safe.
God Bless and Keep this Republic.
Maybe, But I believe it might be a couple of months or two before start "warming up" and critiquing themselves openly on an aar. My prayers for the victims families though,May God bless them at this time and keep them. VaBthang4...God Bless you neighbor stay safe.
God Bless and Keep this Republic.
However i have no real info on what you referred to ( FAST companies). Thus i will rely on the info i have. Bear with me.
Anyways (after that long aside) what i was trying to say is that based on the scenario the Russians were facing (i.e: terrorists start killing people, with half of the terrorists having their fingers on triggers to explosives with ball bearings strapped to their bodies, not to mention the mines lining the theater ..although i have to say in my opinion the kamikaze terrorists with strap-on explosives were the bigger threat). The Spetsgruppa al'fa had to act immediately, and thus they did not have the time to set up elaborate plans like the thermal detectors and radar systems you mentioned.
Compare this witht he example i gave of the 1980 Iranian embassy fiasco in London that the SAS had to handle. They had 11 weeks (almost 3 months) to train, which included building a replica of the embassy, and they were facing 6 terrorists armed with submachine guns and 26 hostages. The Russians on the other hand had minutes after the terrorists started killing hostages, and they had around 50 terrorists (with half scattered around the hostages with strapped on explosives on a hair trigger), plus around 750 hostages (meaning a bigger number of people to allocate 'friend or foe', all in a matter of seconds). The Russians were facing an uphill battle, and the very fact the terrorists did not manage to detonate the kamikaze bombs is a factor that is important because the death toll would have been tremendous.
As for the 'sleepingg as' i think it is some type of binary nerve agent (eg a sterease inhibitor) that was used to conk out the terrorists almost simulatenously. After all if they used a simple sleeping gas some terrorists would have noticed their fellow terrorists dozing off and exploded the bombs. Thus they had to use the nerve agent, and i am certain some of the 90 hostages dead demised due to the nerve agent (after all when your brain cannot communicate with your muscles there is a chance you can choke on your vomit ...and woe betide you if you are old). The reason i think the media says it is a 'sleeping gas' is because everyone was limp ....howevert he use of a sleeping gas would have been stupid. However release a nerve agent and voi'la .....Chechyan terrorists slumped on the floor to pump slugs into at pleasure!
Anyways my basic point was i am sure there are spec-ops teams that might have performed the job better. And i am sure if the Russian spetsgruppa had 11 weeks of practice like the SAS had, and if the terrorists had been armed with Kalashnikovs only instead of sucide bombs, and if the number of terrorists and hostages were lesser (eg 26 hostages like the SAS case instead of 750 hostages with half of the 50 terrorists wearing bombs and masquerading as hostages). And then provide mere minutes of reaction time.
To be honest with you i am surprised not many more hostages died, and i am especially surprised the Russians managed to nuetralize the kamikaze terrorists scattered among the hostages with strap-on bombs.
Hence i am sad 90 hostages died (and 30 terrorists to give a total of 120 dead ...although strangely the media is not emphasing it was 90 hostages 30 terrorists but are just saying 120 dead and putting the fact that 30 of that 120 is comprised of terrorists, but hey, i am not going to question the motives of the media). However i am impressed that under time and rpessure constraints the Russians managed to put a plan into work in minutes after they heard shots, and they managed to neutralize the terrorists without a greater death toll occuring.
However i have no real info on what you referred to ( FAST companies). Thus i will rely on the info i have. Bear with me.
Anyways (after that long aside) what i was trying to say is that based on the scenario the Russians were facing (i.e: terrorists start killing people, with half of the terrorists having their fingers on triggers to explosives with ball bearings strapped to their bodies, not to mention the mines lining the theater ..although i have to say in my opinion the kamikaze terrorists with strap-on explosives were the bigger threat). The Spetsgruppa al'fa had to act immediately, and thus they did not have the time to set up elaborate plans like the thermal detectors and radar systems you mentioned.
Compare this witht he example i gave of the 1980 Iranian embassy fiasco in London that the SAS had to handle. They had 11 weeks (almost 3 months) to train, which included building a replica of the embassy, and they were facing 6 terrorists armed with submachine guns and 26 hostages. The Russians on the other hand had minutes after the terrorists started killing hostages, and they had around 50 terrorists (with half scattered around the hostages with strapped on explosives on a hair trigger), plus around 750 hostages (meaning a bigger number of people to allocate 'friend or foe', all in a matter of seconds). The Russians were facing an uphill battle, and the very fact the terrorists did not manage to detonate the kamikaze bombs is a factor that is important because the death toll would have been tremendous.
As for the 'sleepingg as' i think it is some type of binary nerve agent (eg a sterease inhibitor) that was used to conk out the terrorists almost simulatenously. After all if they used a simple sleeping gas some terrorists would have noticed their fellow terrorists dozing off and exploded the bombs. Thus they had to use the nerve agent, and i am certain some of the 90 hostages dead demised due to the nerve agent (after all when your brain cannot communicate with your muscles there is a chance you can choke on your vomit ...and woe betide you if you are old). The reason i think the media says it is a 'sleeping gas' is because everyone was limp ....howevert he use of a sleeping gas would have been stupid. However release a nerve agent and voi'la .....Chechyan terrorists slumped on the floor to pump slugs into at pleasure!
Anyways my basic point was i am sure there are spec-ops teams that might have performed the job better. And i am sure if the Russian spetsgruppa had 11 weeks of practice like the SAS had, and if the terrorists had been armed with Kalashnikovs only instead of sucide bombs, and if the number of terrorists and hostages were lesser (eg 26 hostages like the SAS case instead of 750 hostages with half of the 50 terrorists wearing bombs and masquerading as hostages). And then provide mere minutes of reaction time.
To be honest with you i am surprised not many more hostages died, and i am especially surprised the Russians managed to nuetralize the kamikaze terrorists scattered among the hostages with strap-on bombs.
Hence i am sad 90 hostages died (and 30 terrorists to give a total of 120 dead ...although strangely the media is not emphasing it was 90 hostages 30 terrorists but are just saying 120 dead and putting the fact that 30 of that 120 is comprised of terrorists, but hey, i am not going to question the motives of the media). However i am impressed that under time and rpessure constraints the Russians managed to put a plan into work in minutes after they heard shots, and they managed to neutralize the terrorists without a greater death toll occuring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.