Congrats and condolences to the Ruskies

[Undertoad]

The death toll in the Chechen hostage situation has risen to 118 captives and 50 rebels. But with 750 rescued from terrorists who were loaded with bombs, with the entire place mined, and the rebels willing to die with their fingers on the detonator buttons, the toll could have been much higher.

What kind of gas could be inserted into a room via the ventilation system and would have the effect of immediately rendering everyone in the building unconscious without being detected?

Apparently the gas killed some of the people all by itself, and others had to be hospitalized for nothing other than gassing. Here's speculating it was a powerful nerve agent. The hospitalized don't include any of the rebels because the modus operandi here was to walk in after the gas had taken effect and shoot the baddies cold.

That works for me, but I do wonder whether the US authorities would have the same level of resolve. Apparently that's how it had to be done; if one of them wakes up early and detonates, the death toll could be much, much higher.

In fact, it could have been like this: you have ten minutes to get in, and with your special breathing equipment in place, put a bullet in the head of anyone with a bomb strapped to their belly, and give this antidote to everyone else you can find. I don't know, but that might have been how it was.

[Cam]

I personally wonder what the US public would say if the authorities did something like that. That's one of the very few drawback of a democracy.

[Nic Name]

Waco

Killed <b>some</b> all by itself?

Er, more like about 115. :\

[MaggieL]

Oxymoron: "Non-lethal weapons"

[jaguar]

Maggie from all accounts it was a military nerve agent, i don't think it was meant to be non-lethal when it was developed for a start. Secondly those types of chems affect different people in wildly different ways, enough to cause one person to feel sick is enough to kill someone else. Until more is known about the agent in question its pointless to draw any conclusions from it, although i can't blame the Russians for their approach, it was an extremely dangerous situation.

As for your rather entertaining conclusion I'd love to know how you can assume that everything from teargas to netguns to beanbag rounds to watercannons to some classes of microwave weapons to bioactive agents that attack fuel and gunpowder are clearly lethal. Yes, if you try hard enough you can kill someone with pretty much anything (Harry from lock stock and two smoking barrels comes to mind), doesn't mean its easy, or intended for that purpose, weaponary included. I also don't see how the issues are connected unless your playing 6 degrees of flamewar seperation.

[juju]

lol

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie from all accounts it was a military nerve agent, i don't think it was meant to be non-lethal when it was developed for a start.

I see. But presumambly it was meant to be non-lethal when it was *used*. The accounts I'm hearing are saying "anesthetic gas" rather than "nerve agent", although obviously anesthetics affect nerves.

The stats at the moment seem to be that out of about 750 hostages, about 120 of them died from the gas. Not an impossibly bad outcome, given the situation, I suppose.

Secondly those types of chems affect different people in wildly different ways, enough to cause one person to feel sick is enough to kill someone else. Until more is known about the agent in question its pointless to draw any conclusions from it, although i can't blame the Russians for their approach, it was an extremely dangerous situation.

It was indeed a dangerous situation; whenever Al-Queda is involved danger is not far. People do react "wildly differently" to chemicals. That's why I don't carry chemical agents for self-defense...responses from such "non-lethal weapons" can range anywhere from "totally ineffective" to "death".

As for your rather entertaining conclusion I'd love to know how you can assume that everything from teargas to netguns to beanbag rounds to watercannons to some classes of microwave weapons to bioactive agents that attack fuel and gunpowder are clearly lethal.

Well, *I'd* love to know how you read that conclusion from what I said. You're really eloquent when attacking your own straw men. My point was that "non-lethal weapons" as a class are extremely unreliable, nothing more. Try to avoid putting so many words in my mouth at once, no matter how "entertaining" you find it.

That's an astounding array of "magic bullets" you've cited, too. "Beanbag rounds" and "rubber bullets" are of course safe and extremely effective...except when fired by Israelis. :-) Microwave death rays are highly effective at accomplishing thier basic mission: extracting money from governments. Bioagents that eat gas and shit gunpoowder (or is it "eat gunpowder and piss gasoline"?) are probably quite useful if you have months to spare.

[Nic Name]

If military forces gas their own people, is it not incumbent upon them to provide an antidote to the innocent civilians?

Some of the innocent victims are reported to have died because of a lack of informed treatment.

If the Russian government doesn't want to disclose the chemical structure of the gas, it should have taken the survivors to military hospitals for treatment by informed military doctors.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Nic Name

Some of the innocent victims are reported to have died because of a lack of informed treatment.

What's known in that many died, more may die, and that the Russians won't tell anyone what had been used. Whether more could be saved won't be known until it's known what was used.

[jaguar]

It was indeed a dangerous situation; whenever Al-Queda is involved danger is not far. People do react "wildly differently" to chemicals. That's why I don't carry chemical agents for self-defense...responses from such "non-lethal weapons" can range anywhere from "totally ineffective" to "death".

Al Queda? Really? Wow, you must have access to some amazing intel feeds, last I heard the guy was virtually a hired gun with a crazy plan and his dad had links to Al Queda. Freedom fighter first, Islamic Jihadist second, reminds me allot of Ho Chi Minh, be he was an evil commie wasn't he. Man the only person I've seen actually claim he was even strongly linked to AL Queda was Putin and well.....

As for 'chemical weapons', for which I assume you're referring to pepper spray, i think you'll find the fatality or even injury rate is a tad lower than lets say a glock18 or a magnum pistol. You also mangled my first point, obviously the agent, whatever it was was not meant to be lethal in this situation but if it is cold war era chem weaponry I'm sure it was in its original concentrations for battlefield use, it was just quickly, and quite possibly badly adapted for use on everyone from kids to the elderly in an enclosed space.

Well, *I'd* love to know how you read that conclusion from what I said. You're really eloquent when attacking your own straw men. My point was that "non-lethal weapons" as a class are extremely unreliable, nothing more. Try to avoid putting so many words in my mouth at once, no matter how "entertaining" you find it.

Well you did call it an oxymoron. By which I foolishly assumed you meant, well, an oxymoron. ie: Weapons cannot be non-lethal therefore all weapons are lethal. Or I, assume that non-lethal weapons are not weapons. Take your pick. Or do a better job of articulating your point in the first place.

Bioagents that eat gas and shit gunpoowder[was that intentional?] (or is it "eat gunpowder and piss gasoline"?)

Is there some kind of prism that badly distorts everything between the screen and your eyes? The last two were either way only illustrations of how board a category non-lethal weaponry is.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

Al Queda? Really? Wow, you must have access to some amazing intel feeds....

Yes, it's a very closely kept secret that the Chechnian separatist exile government was based in Afghanistan. Nobody knows that there were a boatload of Chechnians in Afghanistan fighting for Al-Queda and the Taliban. It's arcane knowlege that bin Laden was training Chechnians there.

Pardon me for letting that secret slip out.

As for 'chemical weapons', for which I assume you're referring to pepper spray...

By "chemical weapons" I'm referring to "chemical weapons". All of them.. By nature, they're quite a bit more indiscriminate, erratic, and difficult to control than firearms or edged weapons...even explosives.

Well you did call it an oxymoron. By which I foolishly assumed you meant, well, an oxymoron

"Oxymoron: A figure in which an epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word". Like "non-lethal" and "weapon", you see. It's this attempt to satisfy the "contrary significations" that makes them unreliable and erratic.

[jaguar]

"Oxymoron: A figure in which an epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word". Like "non-lethal" and "weapon", you see. It's this attempt to satisfy the "contrary significations" that makes them unreliable and erratic.

Yes, nice definition, you still didn't articulate what you meant in your original post.

I mean

Weapon
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

Lethal
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death. See Synonyms at fatal.
3. Extremely harmful; devastating: accusations lethal to the candidate's image.

NATO defines a non-lethal weapon as

Non-Lethal Weapons are weapons which are explicitly designed and developed to incapacitate or repel personnel, with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury, or to disable equipment, with minimal undesired damage or impact on the environment.

Because a non-lethal weapon, which we don't know this gas was anyway, can be lethal does not make the term an oxymoron. It is utterly irrelavent if a non-lethal weapon can be used to kill or can occasionally.

Yes, it's a very closely kept secret that the Chechan separatist exile government was based in Afghanistan. Nobody knows that there were a boatload of Chechnians in Afghanistan fighting for Al-Queda and the Taliban. It's arcane knowlege that bin Laden was training Chechnians there.

Pardon me for letting that secret slip out.

Chechen rebels != Al Queda
JI != Al Qudea
Islamic Fundamentalist tendencies and links to Al Queda != Al Queda.

The Chechen struggle has links to Islamic Fundamentalism but is not an Islamic based cause the same way Al Queda is. Stop over and misusing the term, when you get into the nitty grittyof these issues most Islamic organisations you hear of are unbrella ones that cover thousands of suborganisations that change name and structure with bewildering frequency, JI itself is a great example of this. If you want to argue about this i'd be very careful about who you claim is in Al Queda. While Al Queda has links to most extremist Islamic organisations these links, proven or not do not mean the organisation in question is Al Queda, operates under Al Queda or ever operates with Al Queda, many of these groups have severe ideological differences (think catholic/rest of the church), the MMC in Pakistan is a good example of this.

But we could be talking at cross purposes as in country i'm talking about is called Chechnya and the people are called Chechens. I’m not sure who the Chechnians are.


Nic: I've got a nasty feeling there is a good reason they're not letting out what the gas was or anyone into the hospital.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

Because a non-lethal weapon, which we don't know this gas was anyway, can be lethal does not make the term an oxymoron.

Of course it does.

"An epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word...". "Non-lethal" is the epithet, and "weapon" is the word. The examples of "weapon" offered in your own definition were guns, missiles and swords,.all known to comport perfectly with the concept of "non-lethality", right? No "contrary signification" here...

The <b>intent</b> with this chemical weapon was presumambly that it not be lethal, only incapacitating, and it turned out to be a hell of a lot more lethal than was intended. The core problem with the idea of a "non-lethal weapon" is that it seeks to walk such a fine line between being *too* incapacitating and not being incapacitating enough. To do that successfully requires much more control that you will ever have in a chemical agent, especially one used in combat.

Look what a fine line an anesthesiologist walks to keep a patient under general anesthesia. With a constant read-out of heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and oxygenation, and extremely precise control of IV dosages and breathing gas mixtures, an anesthetist can keep *one* person delicately balanced between "too awake to operate on" and "dead" for long enough to get through a surgery. Usually.

It's entirely possible that the scene commanders played the best possible hand from the cards they were dealt. That more people weren't killed is indeed amazing.

But here we had something like 1,000 people, and the goal was to incapacitate the youngest ones in the best condition so quickly they didn't have time to set off the bombs in the building and strapped to their bellies, while not killing the folks who came to see the musical. Doses were administered in bulk to the entire building at once, and feedback was whatever could be seen though fiberscopes or whatever access they had to the inside of the occupied building. If any.

While Al Queda has links to most extremist Islamic organisations...

"...where Al Queda is involved..." were indeed my words

...most Islamic organisations you hear of are unbrella ones that cover thousands of suborganisations that change name and structure with bewildering frequency..

No kidding. The intent of all that being to confuse the enemy, but most of all to avoid responsibility and retribution for one's actions.

After all, there is no <b>guilt</b>; all they have to do is avoid <b>blame</b>. That's why after 9/11 we got this load of hooey from the Taliban that ran "Oh, bin Laden? He's only our guest. Prove to us that he's done these terrible things you accuse him of."

Aren't you perfectly willing to sanction blaming the US for what the Israelis do? (Oh, but *that's* different. Sure it is.)

But we could be talking at cross purposes as in country i'm talking about is called Chechnya and the people are called Chechens. I'm not sure who the Chechnians are.

Oh, I'm sorry. If I wanted you to understand that I meant Chechnya I suppose should have misspelled it "Chehcnay". But you usually transpose vowels, and there just weren't enough to go around. Does that "remind you allot" of anything among "you're weaponary"? Non-lethal, of course.

[jaguar]

Oh, I'm sorry. If I wanted you to understand that I meant Chechnya I suppose should have misspelled it "Chehcnay". But you usually transpose vowels, and there just weren't enough to go around. Does that "remind you allot" of anything among "you're weaponary"? Non-lethal, of course.

Slick, excuse me while I wither away under the heat of such biting comebacpfffft hahaha. A typo is one thing, systematically mangling the name of a country and its people is a little different.

No kidding. The intent of all that being to confuse the enemy, but most of all to avoid responsibility and retribution for one's actions.

After all, there is no guilt; all they have to do is avoid blame. That's why after 9/11 we got this load of hooey from the Taliban that ran "Oh, bin Laden? He's only our guest. Prove to us that he's done these terrible things you accuse him of."

Aren't you perfectly willing to sanction blaming the US for what the Israelis do? (Oh, but *that's* different. Sure it is.)

Huh? What are you on about? You completely lost me after the second paragraph.

"...where Al Queda is involved..." were indeed my words

Al Queda was not involved. An organisation with links to Al Queda was involved. A rather patchy organisation with allot of dead leaders at that.

"An epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word...". "Non-lethal" is the epithet, and "weapon" is the word. The examples of "weapon" offered in your own definition were guns, missiles and swords,.all known to comport perfectly with the concept of "non-lethality", right? No "contrary signification" here...

And in the same definition, logic. You're taking a very selective definition of weapon. So let me get this right? because guns, missiles and swords are lethal, all weapons are? Huh? We don't know if the chemical weapon, when produced was meant to be lethal or not, irrelevant of how it is then used. Your convoluted definition is rather interesting, ok we'll take a non-lethal weapon, as defined by NATO, which would include everything from radar jammers to bioagents that attack fuel. Why is for example, a radar jammer, not a non-lethal weapon. I mean it is An instrument of attack or defense in combat, right? And yet you'd have a damn hard time killing someone with it, unless you dropped it on them. Nowhere in the definition on weapon does it say a device designed, or for the purpose of killing anything, let alone people. While you'd love to define it narrowly the definition shows that anything, including logic, can be a weapon and thus it is farcical to say a weapon cannot be non-lethal. I mean a gun can be a non-lethal weapon, pistol whip someone or shoot them in the knee, but the intent is a weapon designed to kill. A non lethal weapon on the other hand is not, thus the NATO definition. Just because something can be a lethal weapon, does not be it is classified as one, lets face it, I could beat someone to death with my ipod, yet i don't see that described as a lethal weapon. It would also be a crime against aesthetics. I do love my ipod.