"Taking Page from Israel War Tactics, US Military..." Topic

… Employs Controversial 'Roof Knocking'

"An Israeli tactic deemed "ineffective" at preventing civilian causalities by a United Nations commission has now been adopted by the United States in its fight against ISIS, according to a U.S. military official.

Air Force Maj. Peter Gersten, the deputy commander for operations and intelligence for the U.S.-led coalition, explained at a press briefing Tuesday that the tactic dubbed "knocking on the roof" was, in fact, used during a strike in Mosul, Iraq against a "major distributor of funds to Daesh fighters." A woman the military had seen come and go with her children from the building died in the strike—"an unfortunality," as Gersten called it.

"We went as far as actually to put a Hellfire on top of the building and air burst it so it wouldn't destroy the building, simply knock on the roof to ensure that she and the children were out of the building. And then we proceeded with our operations," Gersten said. He went on to say that ISIS fighters are "using the civilian force as human shields." He said that the military saw the woman and children leave the building. They then "began to process the strike," but the woman ran back into the building and was killed…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

ISIS fighters are "using the civilian force as human shields.

And that is a big reason why Daesh is still active today …

In WWII the Japanese disbursed a lot of war production to home based factories. How did the Allies solve that problem?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

The Japanese lived in wooden homes that were highly concentrated.

The Allies had no problems firebombing them into ashes.

Bunkermeister , I can't see how bombing practices in WW2 help with regard to bombing practises today designed to reduce civilian casualties ?

Sorry for being dense, what am I failing to understand?

Well no doubt the WWII concept of mass bombing strikes on all targets turning them to dust does not fit with today's paradigm of modern warfare. If for no other reason, tech is much, much, much better with targeting and smart munitions, etc. Not to mention the West's idea of being humane, etc., …

Regardless of what some of the intellectual academics profess. All Western nations attempt to limit the CD as much as possible. But as we see that is always not possible. For a number of reasons. The best way to limit it is to not go into a conflict. But the OPFOR has to agree somehow with the concept of limiting CD. And as we see, Daesh, AQ, BH, AS, etc., won't hear of it … they won't play the game and play by their own corrupted rules. Hence non-combat losses will be much larger than they should be. A sad reality when dealing with radical islamic insurgents/terrorists/jahadis …

Seems to me part of this new paradigm is helping the weak jihadis win wars against superpowers, much like the North Vietnamese did in that war.

Politicians need to make a choice to either win, or lose, and then pursue the appropriate policies to ensure that.

Fighting humane wars usually means more of your own troops get killed, permanently maimed, or wounded, and you'll most likely lose anyway, since you cede the initiative and power to your opponents, so why even start?

Sometimes, difficult choices need to be made in order to ensure victory.

A short, sharp war, with some regrettable casualties is surely much better than a long, drawn out one that causes even more for both sides.

Crushing the enemy with overwhelming force is far preferable, in my opinion, and will lead to fewer casualties on all sides in the long run.

In WWII the Japanese disbursed a lot of war production to home based factories. How did the Allies solve that problem?

Wasn't so much "disbursed" as "never made big factories to begin with." Even today, Japan has a huge number of small workshops all over the place.

And the US dealt with the problem by firebombing entire cities to make sure they destroyed the war factories. Can't do that today, it's the kind of thing that gets called a War Crime.

A short, sharp war, with some regrettable casualties is surely much better than a long, drawn out one that causes even more for both sides.

Crushing the enemy with overwhelming force is far preferable, in my opinion, and will lead to fewer casualties on all sides in the long run.

That has generally been US doctrine for decades. However, with the insurgencies that have come about since after WWII. It is hard to do, for a number of reasons. Which as noted has made these conflicts drag on which is to the insurgents favor. No easy solutions …

Worth noting that the Israeli tactics doesn't work – in as much as they're still fighting an insurgency decade son..

Can't think why the Palestinian civilians still hate them…

Terrorizing a civilian population surely only creates as many enemies as it eliminates. A next generation comes of age knowing nothing but violence and rage.

A problem with Western doctrine is that it places more value on its own soldiers than on foreign civilians. (And I hear military veterans grumble in private that the military values lives over success, realizing themselves that failure only prolongs wars at the cost of more lives long-term.) Yet the soldiers volunteered for their jobs -- civilians do not volunteer to live where they do or under the circumstances they are forced to live. (By "civilian" I mean noncombatant, not a guerrilla fighter.) Part of the risk of the soldier's job is to know that your life is less important than the mission.

If the success of the mission is undermined by causing civilian casualties, soldiers' lives have been risked in vain and civilians sacrificed for naught -- and so the conflict goes on, putting more lives under threat for all sides.

The West saves the lives of many soldiers by the way it fights these modern wars, but at the cost of failing in their mission, if you assume that the mission is to win a war or crush an insurgency.

Crushing the enemy, and getting them to succumb quickly saves more lives in the long run.

It worked in both WWI and WWII, but hasn't since then, since we've been following the policy you are advocating, piper.

Note, WWI and WWII were over rather quickly by more modern standards as well, e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Iraq "War"/counter-insurgency fight, the fight against radical Islam, and ISIS/AQ in Syria and beyond.

"The surge" worked in Iraq. Even the AQ jihadis were openly communicating that they'd lost the war in Iraq, and telling their fellow brethren not to come there, and then it was all tossed carelessly away, despite advance warnings of the dire consequences of a total pullout. Some did not heed the advice given at the time, and now more "boots on the ground" are being sent back to "train"/fight there again, pretty much monthly.

I believe you've reached the wrong conclusions, like many in power.

Worth noting that the Israeli tactics doesn't work – in as much as they're still fighting an insurgency decade son..

Of course Israeli tactics work. Israel recently celebrated the 68th anniversary of independence. I think you misunderstand the purpose of Israeli tactics. They are to procure Israel's survival, and for no other purpose.

Can't think why the Palestinian civilians still hate them…

Then I'll explain that to you, too. It's because humane war-fighting tactics won't win over the hearts and minds of a committed enemy. Nor will reason.

On target again Zip … I agree with your comments …

A problem with Western doctrine is that it places more value on its own soldiers than on foreign civilians. (And I hear military veterans grumble in private that the military values lives over success, realizing themselves that failure only prolongs wars at the cost of more lives long-term.)

The US and the West goes out of it's way to limit CD to as low as possible. But as we see, that is always not that easy. Especially with the insurgents hiding among the non-combatants. That is the way any insurgency works. If the US/West was not concerned about CD. Daesh would have been attrited to the point of being ineffectual by now.

Yet the soldiers volunteered for their jobs -- civilians do not volunteer to live where they do or under the circumstances they are forced to live. (By "civilian" I mean noncombatant, not a guerrilla fighter.) Part of the risk of the soldier's job is to know that your life is less important than the mission.

No that is not correct. The soldier and mission accomplishment are equally important. "Mission first … Troops Always" was the saying when I was on active duty. And no doubt many times the soldier knows that sacrifices have to be made. But that is the last option.

That is why the US uses all types of support to reduce the loss of the soldiers' lives. FA, Gunships, CAS, etc., etc. are very effective when allowed to be used to their fullest capabilities. And employed properly. But in some cases in the current conflicts it has to be use prudently so as not to cause/limit CD. Which again as we see it is not always easy to do.

Zippy – doubtless you can explain to me how humane it is to use WP on an school full of kids….

Israel is not humane. Hasn't really been since it got a massive influx of Russians.

So, Stu, it's the Russians who are responsible for Israel's fall from grace and from your favor? Do tell.

I tell ya, its them damn sneaky Russkies !!!!!

Regarding the Israeli's, here is what they are up against:
link

What is CD when the civilians are the enemy?

Hamas manufacturing facilities are their women. Their training facilities are schools. Their HQ's are located in hospitals. We won't attack them so they grow stronger.

As long as Israel exists the Palestinians are going to be pissed off. While many Palestinians do want to be left alone to work and raise a family they are led by terrorist organizations and funded by outside Muslim sources (mostly from Western Petrodollars). The rest of the Muslim world is using the Palestinians to fight a proxy war for them against Israel. They cannot let the Palestinian people become complacent.

No matter what Israel does Palestine and the terrorists will continue to put pressure on them until Israel is wiped out.

Wars are normally won by making the thought of continuing too painful and breaking the will of the people. Because of our ROE's and limiting CD we cannot do that. The enemy does not have that problem. They will bite the hand of any Infidel that feeds or protects them.

The enemy is too dispersed and we cannot concentrate against him. They have the initiative to attack wherever they want and have opened up new fronts against us by melting in among us.

They are winning the PsyOp war as their propaganda unites their people and turns many of our people and leaders into their collaborators. Thank political correctness and millions of dollars and payoffs to US and other western politicians while engaging the best PR firms money can buy. The Muslim Brotherhood is firmly entrenched in the current US administration.

Saudi Arabia has contributed millions of dollars to US university's to implement Islamic studies courses. Saudi Arabia funds many of the mosques that open in the US and get visas for Wahabbist Imams to teach the same version of Islam OBL practiced. The same people who funded building the Madrasas in Pakistan (Saudi Arabia) offered to build about 300 mosques in Germany to accommodate their new influx of Muslims.

They consider Western society weak and despotic and the main cause of it is democracy – they prefer Sharia. Westerners are still sticking their head in the sand trying to figure a way to please and appease them.

The only way to appease them is to die or convert. If not be prepared to fight. If you do not want to fight stay out of the way and keep your mouth shut.

Wolfhag

Well said guys.

Israel is one of the good nations/forces in the region.

Jordan, and now the military-run Egypt are too.

You can't negotiate with Muslim radicals, since any peace with them will be rather short lived, and will only continue so long as it works to their benefit, and against their opponents.

Agree Wolf and Mako …

And I don't think many know that Jordan and Egypt are good allies in the WOT. And they and the Israelis get along pretty well these days.

The Saudis and Turks … to quote Homer Simpson … "Worst Allies Ever !"

Mako 11 wrote:

A short, sharp war, with some regrettable casualties is surely much better than a long, drawn out one that causes even more for both sides.

Crushing the enemy with overwhelming force is far preferable, in my opinion, and will lead to fewer casualties on all sides in the long run.

Unless you are one of the "regrettable casualties" or one of their surviving relatives or friends. Then your short, sharp war pretty much sucks and sows the seeds for future radicalization and revenge.

WWI and WWII were fought against states and concluded when those states collapsed or surrendered. Terrorism and radical Islamist ideologies are not states but ideas and cannot be bombed out of existence by military means. Nor can they be effectively suppressed by local strongmen or foreign occupiers. You fight ideas with other better ideas and you fight terrorism with law enforcement and judicial punishment usually and military force as a rare last resort.

Jordan, and now the military-run Egypt are too.

What, pray-tell is your definition of "good" I wonder if you think the El-Sisi junta is "good"?

Wolfhag wrote:

They are winning the PsyOp war as their propaganda unites their people and turns many of our people and leaders into their collaborators. Thank political correctness and millions of dollars and payoffs to US and other western politicians while engaging the best PR firms money can buy. The Muslim Brotherhood is firmly entrenched in the current US administration.

Perhaps there is a different explanation. Perhaps Israeli domination of Palestine and Western destabilization of the Middle East are morally wrong and politically unsustainable policies and the "turned" people and leaders who you seem to label as collaborators are just refusing to go along with a failed strategy that is bankrupting their nation, killing too many and generating a world more full of enemies than ever before. Perhaps it is common sense and not propaganda which will be the undoing of this short age of political/military neo-imperialism, transnational neo-liberalism and neo-conservative militarism. Perchance this could be an awakening rather than a deception; a realization that we are the second set of villains in this virtueless passion play of realpolitik. A triumph of the common folks' real interests over the agendas of special interests and a media-management-military-industrial-complex.

The only way to appease them is to die or convert. If not be prepared to fight. If you do not want to fight stay out of the way and keep your mouth shut.

Not exactly a democratic sentiment is it. I want to fight a war so if you disagree stay outta my way and shut up! It reminds me of the 1930's in Europe where dictators on the left and right dragged millions to death and ruin. Perhaps some sober reflection is needed here?

Rod Robertson.

I want to fight a war…

That's not what I heard him say.

Rod,
After much sober reflection.

As you said Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps – I say perhaps not.

A war that is a clash of civilizations and a war of propaganda is not necessarily fought on a military front. I didn't advocate military action. I don't think I presented any solution. I only stipulated what I thought the targets are.

Saudi is financing a stealth Jihad in the US by establishing mosques around the country and main streaming Islam on college campuses. One thing about Saudi Arabia is that as king you do not have to worry about getting re-elected or opinion polls. Just chop off the head of your opponents.

Many of the Islamic leaders that are not advocating violence are patient because they know very well it is just time and numbers until they can take over. The degrading of Western moral standards that has resulted in a less than sustainable birth rate and the influx of millions of Muslims into Europe who will 2x the infidel birth rate will make the victorious. Abortion is killing millions of Western infidels while still in their mothers wound. Couple that with handicapping dissent with a successful PC PsyOp campaign that paints poor Muslims as the victims and disarms and silence anyone that dares confront them with "hate speech". The ones wanting to silence people are the governments of Europe and the PC groups in the US that want to silence their own citizens, not me.

After working at a US intel agency I worked helping major US corporate and government agencies staff military and civilian projects around the world as far back as when the Shah was still in power in Iran. I've done work with the Saudi Royal Commissions and met members of their Royal Family. I'm a little more familiar with the situation than most people and the degree that Saudi has infiltrated into the country and US government. They are patient and these terrorist attacks are going to help turn public relations against them and open peoples eyes.

You do make a point about unstabilizing the mid-east. Recent history is showing that the best way to stabilize countries in North Africa and the Middle East is to support a ruthless secular or religious dictator who will suspend the right of free speech for his citizens and imprison and torture them if they do not conform. Would you criticize countries that support stabilizing areas using ruthless dictators? It seems to work better than the solution we've tried.

I think the US and other Western countries were naive to support the "Arab Spring". I sincerely wish it would have worked. Should we have supported Saddam and Khadafy, ignored him or enforce the laws and take him down and replace him? What about Assad? Maybe keep him around as a stabilizing influence? Keep Iran an Islamic Republic because they stabilize the area and fast track them for nukes? (Ooops, looks like the US already did) Should we continue to support the dictator/king of Saudi Arabia or free their people to embrace democracy? I'm not advocating anything so don't try to put words in my mouth again. These are tough decisions that the US and West has still not addressed.

If we don't put a stop to ruthless dictators we do not stand for freedom and democracy. If we do we are neo-colonialists over throwing elected dictators with our military. What's a country to do Rod?

Rod, I asked you to voluntarily shut up. If you are not with us then you must be siding with someone else and not helping us. I did not advocate sending you to a concentration camp. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

A war that is a clash of civilizations and a war of propaganda is not necessarily fought on a military front. I didn't advocate military action. I don't think I presented any solution. I only stipulated what I thought the targets are.

You certainly seemed to imply military action with words like "targets" and implications like relaxed ROE's and wider acceptance of Collateral Damage. You seem to imply that these are the course to victory if America had the political will to do so (which you say it does not). You wrote:

Wars are normally won by making the thought of continuing too painful and breaking the will of the people. Because of our ROE's and limiting CD we cannot do that.

Wolfhag then asked:

If we don't put a stop to ruthless dictators we do not stand for freedom and democracy. If we do we are neo-colonialists over throwing elected dictators with our military. What's a country to do Rod?

The answer is to stop meddling in other country's affairs and to let the natural course of human history play out in these countries and regions. Just as Christian Europe had to endure 250 years of strife and upheaval before it grew tired of the Wars of Religion, so must Dar al Islam mature to such a realization of its own. You need not topple dictators nor foment revolution. Just mind your own business. If you want to object to tyrants then don't buy their goods and sell them your weapons. If you don't want violent jihadists seizing power then don't encourage local military juntas to overthrow democratically elected Islamist governments and let these nascent governments fumble and falter on their own, discrediting their ideology and zealotry as they mismanage their state and thus alienate their own people. The problems of foreign nations and peoples are not yours to fix.

Rod, I asked you to voluntarily shut up. If you are not with us then you must be siding with someone else and not helping us. I did not advocate sending you to a concentration camp. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

I choose to decline your invitation to be voluntarily silenced. The "us vs. them" duality is daft. It is possible for citizens of a state to hold and voice different opinions and still be loyal and acting in the best interests of the state. The kind of Manichean polarity which you imply is as misguided as the intolerance of ISIL or the Taliban.

The degrading of Western moral standards that has resulted in a less than sustainable birth rate and the influx of millions of Muslims into Europe who will 2x the infidel birth rate will make the victorious. Abortion is killing millions of Western infidels while still in their mothers wound. Couple that with handicapping dissent with a successful PC PsyOp campaign that paints poor Muslims as the victims and disarms and silence anyone that dares confront them with "hate speech". The ones wanting to silence people are the governments of Europe and the PC groups in the US that want to silence their own citizens, not me.

And yet you asked me to voluntarily shut up. It seems you're in the silencing game too, by your own admission.

And Muslims are the victims of both Islamist radicals and a Western military action. How many westerners have died from terrorism. How many Muslims have died from Western military action in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa? The numbers are orders of magnitude apart.

If Europe is choosing to reproduce at lower rates and Muslin immigrants are making up the shortfall by migration and higher birth rates, then why blame the Muslims for a lack of Euro-Christian fecundity? Wasn't the same argument made by good German Catholics about Eastern European Slavs 80 years ago and look how that turned out.

And speaking of fecundity here is a lovely thought which you expressed above:

Hamas manufacturing facilities are their women. Their training facilities are schools. Their HQ's are located in hospitals. We won't attack them so they grow stronger.

Only the last point about hospitals is valid. The rest is the kind of poisonous insinuation which often ends badly and while you have the right of free speech you must bear the responsibility for the consequences of what you write. With freedom comes responsibility. Refusing to target women as reproductive infrastructure is correct and not a sign of weakness. Attacking an enemy's children or their schools is repugnant and barbaric, no different from Islamic zealots who attack school girls and schools for educating women. Unwholesome fundamentalism reeks of evil whether it is Islamist or secular.

Rod Robertson.

So, Stu, it's the Russians who are responsible for Israel's fall from grace and from your favor? Do tell.

Simply put Israel used to be a left-of centre palce with progressive values.

Russians, as we've all seen, tend to be right-wing nationalistic thugs.

Since the fall of the USSR and the influx of lots of Russian Jews, Israeli politics has changed and they've become more hardline, even as deaths from Palestinian attacks has fallen.

I blame the influx of hundreds of thousand sof right-wing bigots from the former USSR. They've changed Israel, and not for the better.

I'm not sure if that is true. But is sounds it may have some logic, etc., … However, on the other side of coin. Most were OK with Europe taking in millions of moslem refugees. A few of which appear to be jihadists.
So the Israelis took in Jewish immigrates and that is their prerogative as they are similar to the Jews in Israel.

And as we see, most of the moslem refugees, fleeing from other moslems. Are a bit of a burden on the host countries. For an number of reasons, mostly economical. And many are not assimilating very well.

Something I noticed since the Russian invasion of A'stan so many years ago. The West's archenemy, the Russians are generally more like the us than many moslems. I had a though, we may have supported the wrong side ? As I have said before, we should not have supported the Muj against the USSR. With the growth of islamic terrorist groups like AQ, etc., … As a result of the USSR leaving A'stan. At least in part. There is more to it than that of course. But as we see again today another Daesh attack in France. At Normandy where 2 Daesh types slit the 84 year old priest's throat during mass. Yelling Allah Akbar. And has been claimed by Daesh. NO doubt is an islamic terrorists act …

As bad a the USSR was. They never committed such heinous crimes as we see Daesh and other jihadis are in the West. And remember Daesh had it's roots in AQ in Iraq. And it morphed from there.

Maybe if the Russians had killed UBL and his AQ crew in the '80s. Maybe there would be no Daesh or even AQ ? If I have a choice between the Russians and Islamic terrorism … I don't think that is a hard decision. At least we could talk to the Russians ….

Russians, as we've all seen, tend to be right-wing nationalistic thugs

I blame the influx of hundreds of thousand sof right-wing bigots from the former USSR.

The same could be said about the islamists being bigoted thugs yes ?

Legion 4:

As bad a the USSR was. They never committed such heinous crimes as we see Daesh and other jihadis are in the West. And remember Daesh had it's roots in AQ in Iraq. And it morphed from there.

Time to bone up on Soviet History Legion 4. The Soviets committed atrocities which dwarfed anything ISIL has done from the Russian Civil War, the Liquidation of the Kulaks, the slaughter and rapes of millions during WWII, the post-WWII forced migrations of Germans which resulted in millions of deaths and the gulag system in Siberia.

Rod Robertson.

Yes, yes, we all know that … I'm talking about today with the advent of radicalized islam.

We could also go back to the crusades, WWI, etc., etc., when we talk about atrocities, etc. But I'm talking about the reality of today. The Russians are not killing Western civilians at bars, grocery stores, churches, etc. … just Because they are Christians. Please don't twist my words to fit your intellectual academic globalist philosophy …

Russians, as we've all seen, tend to be right-wing nationalistic thugs.

Since the fall of the USSR and the influx of lots of Russian Jews, Israeli politics has changed and they've become more hardline, even as deaths from Palestinian attacks has fallen.

I blame the influx of hundreds of thousand sof right-wing bigots from the former USSR. They've changed Israel, and not for the better.

Stu, once again you are misinformed.

If you think about it, you'll realize that most of the Jewish immigrants to Israel from the 'former USSR' are Ukrainian by nationality, not Russian. Russians are, of course, all nationalist thugs, but Ukes are cute'n'cuddly, blue-jeans-wearing, Pepsi-swilling, Orange Revolutionaries, innit? Is it just the Ukrainian Jews who are right-wing bigots? Maybe it's a self-selective thing by the Ukrainian Jews who choose to immigrate to Israel? Do tell.

(Let's see if I can make Stu's head explode from sheer cognitive dissonance. Probably won't, he's got an extremely high tolerance.)

Stu, it was the mizrachim who turned Israeli politics right back in the 1990s, those brown Jews who you imagine are still oppressed by the ashkenazi establishment. The mizrachim broke the Labor party monopoly on power by supporting Likud and Shas. Netanyahu, though himself descended from Polish Jews, is their PM.

The mizrachim tend to practice a very conservative, even reactionary form of Talmud Judaism. They tend to be socially conservative too, they don't tolerate gays or uppity women. They know the Arabs well, many are refugees from Arab lands who speak fluent Arabic. In general, they believe in being 'hard' with the Arabs; they think no other policy will work.

Although they don't respect me, I have to respect their knowledge and experience.

By the way, it was a mizrachi, Yigal Amir, the son of Yemeni immigrants, who assassinated PM Rabin back in 1995.

And you natter about the Russians.

Legion 4:

The Russian conduct of the Second Chechnyan War had a lot of human rights abuses including massacres and between 2000 and 5000 disappearances. This was in the 2000's so is that recent enough for you?

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Again we all are well aware of that. But the Russians have not done such things in the West. Just like we were allies with the Russians in WWII. To rid the world of Nazis. I'd think to get rid of Daesh it would be a "marriage of convenience" if need be. Realpolitik ? A deal with the Devil … maybe … ? However we can't make any deals with radical islam. But to send them to paradise in large numbers frequently is the best we can do for now.

And as we know Chechnya is predominately islamic. So I AFAIK that was a big factor in the mix for two wars with Russia. So if you reread my post I said, "I'm talking about today with the advent of radicalized islam …."

So I'd guess the Chechens would qualify … And I'm sure the war crimes, etc., were not just committed by the Russians. It's a hallmark of radicalized islam. Like we saw in Normandy France today. And a number times this year. As well as at other locations in the world. Radical islamists are not victims … they are the problem.

Chechnya is in the West dude!

May be Wikipedia is wrong ?

From Wikipedia

Chechen Republic
Чеченская Республика (Russian)
Нохчийн Республика (Chechen)

Coordinates: 43°24′N 45°43′ECoordinates: 43°24′N 45°43′E

Country
Russia

Federal district
North Caucasian

Economic region
North Caucasus

Capital
Grozny

Official languages
Russian; Chechen
Official website

The Chechen Republic (/ˈtʃɛtʃᵻn/; Russian: Чече́нская Респу́блика, tr. Chechenskaya Respublika; IPA: [tɕɪˈtɕɛnskəjə rʲɪˈspublʲɪkə]; Chechen: Нохчийн Республика, Noxçiyn Respublika), commonly referred to as Chechnya (/ˈtʃɛtʃniə/; Russian: Чечня́; IPA: [tɕɪˈtɕnʲa]; Chechen: Нохчийчоь, Noxçiyçö), also spelled Chechnia or Chechenia, sometimes referred to as Ichkeria (lit land of minerals), is a federal subject (a republic) of Russia.

It is located in the North Caucasus, situated in the southernmost part of Eastern Europe, and within 100 kilometres (62 miles) of the Caspian Sea.[15] The capital of the republic is the city of Grozny. As of the 2010 Russian Census, the republic was reported to have a population of 1,268,989 people;[9] however, that number has been questioned by multiple demographers, who think such population growth after two deadly wars is highly implausible.[16][17]

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Chechen-Ingush ASSR was split into two parts: the Republic of Ingushetia and the Chechen Republic. The latter proclaimed the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which sought independence. Following the First Chechen War with Russia, Chechnya gained de facto independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Russian federal control was restored during the Second Chechen War. Since then there has been a systematic reconstruction and rebuilding process, though sporadic fighting continues in the mountains and southern regions of the republic.

When I said – Russians have not done such things in the West … I meant the West as in NATO, Western Europe, North America … not the East. The East like former the WP or Russia after The Wall fell, etc., …

I included the grid coordinates if you want to look it up on map. It's still located in the Russian sphere of influence and was/is part of Russia[depending on the current situation and who you talk to]… Last time I checked many still consider Russia – the East. And Chechnya is generally considered part of Russia and/or again in the Russian sphere of influence. E-mail Putin … he'll tell you something similar to what I just did … dude …