Jump to content

The Beslan Incident


Frlf

Recommended Posts

tl;dr version: Beslan, Russia on the year 2004. It's the first day of school. The biggest school on the region has been raided. All the people around were taken into a gymnasium that was just 10 meters wide and 25 meters long, and there were at least over 1200 hostages. The outcry for this attack was to get to an end the Second Chechen War. There was many gun fighting and bombs, bla bla bla.

 

The hostages stayed there for 3 days, until the Rusian security forces attacked back with tanks, rockets, and other heavy weapons. The attackers defended. About 300 hostages were killed, and many other were injured.

 

Second Chechen War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

Beslan Incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

 

Okay, now to the point of this thread: I know Wikipedia says that they are terrorists, but I want to know if the attackers were really terrorists, and if so, why? They commited war crimes, and they violated human rights, but other than that, is there any reason why they should be called terrorists, and reasons why NOT to be called terrorists? Other than the obvious, of course.

 

There isn't a ground definition for terrorism, but it's something like a thing to create terror by attacking defenseless people, or acts of unlawful violence.

 

Reps for best answers (It's like the only way any one will post on this thread, either way).

 

If this should be moved to debates, do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this's terrible, but what's this to the 1 million Iraqi "casualties of war"? Innocent Iraqis being butchered by malicious or incompetent forces. It's about 3333.33 times less. =/

 

Still though, I'd be funking terrified in either place though, the school or anywhere in Iraq. Apparently, when a Government does it, it's not terrorism? Pretty retarded.

 

My definition of terrorism is attacking another country.

 

...Really? >_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. From Great Britain's point of view' date=' all the Americans in revolt were terrorists.

[/quote']

 

Exactly why I made the thread. The people there wanted an end to the war that was taking on their country (Russia took control of their capital), but doing so, they did do some actions that countries would classify was terrorism.

 

 

@Dark: Yes. Also, the ''terrorists'' were from another country, so for you, they were terrorists?

 

@Polaris: I do understand, but lets just focus on this event. I don't want this to turn into a bawwweveryonehatesrepublicans thread.

 

@Ramanga: If I did trust everything I would've just taken what Wiki said and not asked. I am trying to think rationally, and I want to see more than 1 point of view. Yes, the world is biased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. From Great Britain's point of view' date=' all the Americans in revolt were terrorists.

[/quote']

 

You beat me to it.

I ask, how can one be called a Terrorist, if they are not saw as terror in ones eyes, but as a hero?

Different social context maybe ><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...