At least 35 people killed in Moscow airport after terrorist attack.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Yesterday (4.40PM local time) there went off a bomb at the main airport in Moscow, Russia. There has been confirmed 35 people dead and 130 wounded, but it's hard to tell for sure thanks to scattered body parts and a teeming chaos. According to witnesses that were interviewed by the media shortly after the event, a man with a suit case which could be armed with bombs, shouted "I will kill you all" right before the explosion. Hence the main suspicion so far is that this is a terrorist attack.

Dmitrij Medvedev, the president, exchanged over Twitter "Those who organized this, will be tracked down and punished". Currently there are suspicions against three men of Caucasus descendant, an area which has also previously had its conflicts with Russia. Latest in March 2010, when 40 people were killed in a suicide mission in a subway.

What do you think? I personally cannot imagine how anyone would be crazy enough to attack Russia. Also I sympathize with those injured or murdered. This truly is a tragedy. Barack Obama among others have assured Russia support in any way necessary.

Oh and Russian TV Links a FPS with the incident....Who wants to take a guess?

[Galleo]

How awful.

[animeyay]

Yea, I was kinda surprised that Russia was attacked. I thought they've got connections everywhere in the corner of the world, so how could anyone want to attack them? Fine, some Western countries, namely the US, may see Russia as a rival, but they'd never organize a terrorist attack.
But until I find out what the terrorist's motivation was, I'm refraining from making speculations.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Yea, I was kinda surprised that Russia was attacked. I thought they've got connections everywhere in the corner of the world, so how could anyone want to attack them? Fine, some Western countries, namely the US, may see Russia as a rival, but they'd never organize a terrorist attack.
But until I find out what the terrorist's motivation was, I'm refraining from making speculations.

Hence the last sentence of my OP. The media is really blaming Modern Warfare 2 for this...it's pathetically stupid to think that.
http://kotaku.com/5742990/russian-tv...yline=true&s=i

How is a FPS or a game alone a perfect training for combat or terrorism?

[Forgotten Show]

To say Russia's been having problems with extremist Islamics is putting it very, very mildly. The only surprise should be that this didn't happen sooner.

Having said that, I hope the Russians catch the bastards who organized this.


BM

[Token Black Guy]

Hence the last sentence of my OP. The media is really blaming Modern Warfare 2 for this...it's pathetically stupid to think that.
http://kotaku.com/5742990/russian-tv...yline=true&s=i

How is a FPS or a game alone a perfect training for combat or terrorism?

People are always are gonna try to blame some popular game on some tragedy caused by some person who went nuts or something. I hope they catch the dirtbags responsible for this.

[~*Red*~]

I saw this on the television last night - I sincerely hope the Russians catch who did this and make them pay, big time.

[Light Buster]

Oh and Russian TV Links a FPS with the incident....Who wants to take a guess?

MW2.

Why would someone do this anyways? What a stupid idea. They'll get no redemption for this...

[Videogamer555]

Was the airport that was attacked in the game supposedly the same airport that was just attacked for real?

[Aleyna]

Of course when Russia gets attacked by terrorists and decide to take down whoever is responsible, everyone supports it, but when the U.S. decides to do that(9/11), the U.S. is hated on. I find it quite amusing. Anyways, I hope Russia takes them down, but I hope they don't over drag it, in my opinion, like the U.S. did with 9/11.

[Vaishu]

Sad to know about all the suffering people in the news

[Assiduous✡Aristocrat]

Because blowing up a bomb is the same thing as gunning people down with a Heavy Machine Gun, right?
Remember, no intelligence*
I am curious to know, if any group has claimed the attack?



*http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/No_Russian

[TheyCallMeFei]

Good lord, people are so stupid.

Terrorism is a tactic that groups use to draw attention to a cause that they hold in high regard. But instead of finding out why people do what they do, we brush it off as video-game crazed lunatics.

What's worse is the common mindset of "not negotiating with terrorists." Saving lives is what's important, not some false pride.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

What's worse is the common mindset of "not negotiating with terrorists." Saving lives is what's important, not some false pride.

Hostages of terrorists are different then, say, hostages of kidnapping. When a kidnapper negotiates, they do it in good faith for money and a way out. Terrorists want nothing more or less then political change, and they can not be trusted to release the hostages even after you give it to them. That's why almost all negotiation with terrorists is simply done as a delaying tactic for an HRT to get in place.

[TheyCallMeFei]

Hostages of terrorists are different then, say, hostages of kidnapping. When a kidnapper negotiates, they do it in good faith for money and a way out. Terrorists want nothing more or less then political change, and they can not be trusted to release the hostages even after you give it to them. That's why almost all negotiation with terrorists is simply done as a delaying tactic for an HRT to get in place.

While it's true that they're more prone to violence (duh) because they're radically devoted to their cause, I believe that overall, a lot could be gained from learning what different terrorist groups are after and finding ways to indulge them if at all possible. I'm no expert, though.

In a split second hostage situation, yeah, we're not going to be able to get them to lay down their weapons and unstrap their bomb belts. If I thought that, I'd be stupid and naive.

But looking towards the future, if striking deals with terrorist groups and leaders is going to save lives (which it could), then it's better than letting thousands die in order to take one terrorist out.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

While it's true that they're more prone to violence (duh) because they're radically devoted to their cause, I believe that overall, a lot could be gained from learning what different terrorist groups are after and finding ways to indulge them if at all possible. I'm no expert, though.

In a split second hostage situation, yeah, we're not going to be able to get them to lay down their weapons and unstrap their bomb belts. If I thought that, I'd be stupid and naive.

But looking towards the future, if striking deals with terrorist groups and leaders is going to save lives (which it could), then it's better than letting thousands die in order to take one terrorist out.

To put it in the simplest terms, if we negotiate and give them anything, they win. If they win more people will be in hostage situations, because people do things that get them results. If we never give terrorists the results they want from hostage situations, they are less likely to do them.

[TheyCallMeFei]

To put it in the simplest terms, if we negotiate and give them anything, they win. If they win more people will be in hostage situations, because people do things that get them results. If we never give terrorists the results they want from hostage situations, they are less likely to do them.

Yes, that's worked so well up till now, what with the untold amounts of lives lost to "terrorist attacks", a term so broad in definition that it virtually encompasses every military attack that is carried out for the purpose of asserting that one groups ideals are superior to another's.

It may appear that there are "less" terrorist attacks worldwide (terrorist attacks in this case being bombings or shootings by extremist groups) but the reality is that they still happen and are simply covered up because, honestly, the media only shows us things after passing them through a rigid code (ever since Vietnam, and lord knows we don't need to know how things actually are after /that/).

Things are not as black and white as "winning" and "losing". It's not us versus them or good versus evil like it is in the comic books.

Negotiation isn't a bad thing. Strictly speaking, it's what America's democracy is built upon, but we've long since stopped that, what with partisan politics and all, and people are losing sight of the fact that life is the most important issue.

Negotiation doesn't mean giving someone everything they ask for. It's the idea of give-and-take that makes negotiation work. Only after we sit down like grown ups and sort things out with the leaders of individual terrorist cells will attacks stop, because then they will have nothing else to fight for.

That, and there needs to be an actual weight behind the words of a negotiation. If terms are agreed upon, then they have to be enforced with the threat of actual force, not a committee of people meeting to discuss the meeting that will discuss launching an attack.

If people view terrorist groups as such a big threat (which they undoubtably are) then there has to be a consensus on what's the right way to go about eliminating the threat, whether it be negotiation or massacre. THAT is the biggest issue, nobody is united against something that supposedly affects everyone.

TL;DR:
- Negotiation is how grown-ups solve problems.
- People need to actually care more about things that could get them killed.

[Digimon_Sommelier]

May the victims rest in heavenly peace. I'm disgusted by news like this, and hope we can get it together as a world community. War and violence is not the answer. People, pray...

-Sommelier

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Yes, that's worked so well up till now, what with the untold amounts of lives lost to "terrorist attacks", a term so broad in definition that it virtually encompasses every military attack that is carried out for the purpose of asserting that one groups ideals are superior to another's.

It may appear that there are "less" terrorist attacks worldwide (terrorist attacks in this case being bombings or shootings by extremist groups) but the reality is that they still happen and are simply covered up because, honestly, the media only shows us things after passing them through a rigid code (ever since Vietnam, and lord knows we don't need to know how things actually are after /that/).

Lolwut? The only code the media has anymore is profit, and reporting on terrorism ad nauseium is sure to get you more ad revenue that almost anything else.

Things are not as black and white as "winning" and "losing". It's not us versus them or good versus evil like it is in the comic books.

Nice distortion, but I was taking about wining and losing more in terms of reinforcement and punishment ala psychology.

Negotiation isn't a bad thing. Strictly speaking, it's what America's democracy is built upon, but we've long since stopped that, what with partisan politics and all, and people are losing sight of the fact that life is the most important issue.

Negotiation, in general, isn't a bad thing. Under armed duress constitutes a special case.

Negotiation doesn't mean giving someone everything they ask for. It's the idea of give-and-take that makes negotiation work. Only after we sit down like grown ups and sort things out with the leaders of individual terrorist cells will attacks stop, because then they will have nothing else to fight for.

There is a large difference between acknowledging that terrorists may have valid concerns and letting them run amuck and tell us what to do simply because they can kidnap a bus full of Nuns and stick guns to their heads. There can be no negotiation without trust, and we can not trust people willing to do anything to forward their political agenda. And again, operant conditioning indicates that negotiations with terrorists would be a rather bad idea long term if you'd not like to be terrorized.

That, and there needs to be an actual weight behind the words of a negotiation. If terms are agreed upon, then they have to be enforced with the threat of actual force, not a committee of people meeting to discuss the meeting that will discuss launching an attack.

All well and good, but terrorists are terrorists because they are acting from a position of "downtrodden minority". What will they do next time they need something, I wonder?

If people view terrorist groups as such a big threat (which they undoubtably are)

They aren't. How many people do you know that have been killed by terrorists, and how many do you know that have been killed by heart disease? MCDs has killed more people then every terrorist cell combined.

then there has to be a consensus on what's the right way to go about eliminating the threat, whether it be negotiation or massacre. THAT is the biggest issue, nobody is united against something that supposedly affects everyone.

TL;DR:
- Negotiation is how grown-ups solve problems.

Grown-ups don't take hostages because they can't get their way.

- People need to actually care more about things that could get them killed.

Like Heart Disease.

My own TL;DR

• Negotiating with people that think it's OK to threaten people with death to get their own way is dumb.
• The sort of things people who think it's OK to threaten people with death want are usually bad.
• If you give people the things they want for any given action, they will be more inclined to do that action
• Inversely, if you punish people for any given action you will be less inclined to do that action.
• Ends shouldn't justify means.
• One bus full of nuns today is not worth nine buses full of nuns tomorrow.
  And most importantly...
  
• You can't negotiate without bilateral trust. Terrorists don't trust us, and we'd be damn fools to trust terrorists.

[blueangel06661]

Hence the last sentence of my OP. The media is really blaming Modern Warfare 2 for this...it's pathetically stupid to think that.
http://kotaku.com/5742990/russian-tv...yline=true&s=i

How is a FPS or a game alone a perfect training for combat or terrorism?

Yup because just by playing the game I learn how to build a bomb and know all sorts of tactics. I'm also sure when I throw a tomahawk at someone's hand it instantly kills them rather than decapitating them. And when I kill 3 people a care package automatically falls to the ground. 2 kills if I have a hardline perk on me at the time.-pokerface-

People were crazy before the game. People were crazy after. And I doubt he even played the game. It's just us silly Americans.. Europe.. and Japan that really play it.