Anyone who thinks the American media is a tool of the government should read a bit about how the Russian state media operates.
The Russian government admitted Sunday that it lied to its people about the scale of the hostage crisis that ended with more than 300 children, parents and teachers dead in southern Russia, making an extraordinary admission through state television after days of withering criticism from citizens.If you've got the heart and stomach for it, read the second page of the article and share the grief of the hundreds of families shattered by this most-recent barbarity of Islamic terror.As the bereaved families of Beslan in southern Russia began to lay their loved ones to rest Sunday, the Kremlin-controlled Rossiya network aired gripping, gruesome footage it had withheld from the public for days and said government officials had deliberately deceived the world about the number of hostages inside School No. 1.
"At such moments," anchor Sergei Brilyov declared, "society needs the truth." ...
Sergei Markov, a political analyst with close ties to the Kremlin, said the deadly outcome of the school standoff had left Putin at a loss for how to respond beyond the former KGB colonel's instinct to strengthen police powers and centralize control over government institutions. "They don't know what to do," he said. "Vladimir Putin didn't explain in detail what will be happening."
Speaking before the Sunday-night broadcast of the state television news program "Vesti", Markov said it had been clear that the government had engaged in a clumsy cover-up. "Everybody understands they are lying," he said. "Everybody can do the math and know there were more than 1,000 people inside the school."
The Kremlin sought to distance Putin from the deceptions through Sunday's broadcast, in which the anchor chided "generals and the military and civilians" for failing to act "until the president gives them ideas what to do." Pavlovsky said Putin had given Russia's political system "a no-confidence vote" for its handling of the crisis.
Such statements could never be aired unless the Kremlin directly ordered them, according to political analysts here. Criticism of the president is never broadcast on state television, the continuing war in Chechnya is almost never mentioned and even mild questioning of government policy is not allowed without prior approval from the Kremlin.
"Nothing happens on Rossiya television without the permission of the Kremlin," said commentator Andrei Piontkovsky.
The second page of that story was hard to read.
I'll tell you what, Michael, people are going to have a harder and harder time believing the crap from some folks that our government is artificially inflating the danger of terrorism facing us today.
I'm not sure what to make of it all, but knew from day one that whether there were 300 or 1000 hostages, there was only one thing to do: send in the special ops and pray for the best. There was no possible outcome that did not require a huge number of bodybags. God help us all.
It is also worth noting, as has Dawn Eden that no one is calling them Muslim or Islamic terrorists.
To do so would open our eyes to the fact that staging such an event would be all too easy to pull off here in the USA. Kerry supporters cannot let that happen.
This Chechnya thing has been going on for many years. The separatists reached out to whomever they could find that they thought would be able to help them in their "struggle"... enter the Islamic terrorists. The Chechens, who are Muslims themselves, already have broad support in Turkey and the Middle East. Is it any wonder the Islamic terrorists would follow?
The Russian government has been going after this thing militarily for years... with no results. The conflict is no closer to being resolved than it was when it began. If anything, I think this demonstrates that a military-only solution to terrorism doesn't exist.
One more thing...
We're great at treating the symptoms of terrorism (killing terrorists). That was never in doubt.
What we need to be better at is treating the disease itself (attacking the idea of terrorism).
Mark, how do you attack that idea? Are you suggesting there is a way to reason with them? Do you think they give a rip about our opinion of the validity of their ideals?
The ones worthy of the description "terrorist' could care less what the western civilization thinks, or anyone else, for that matter. This is a holy war for them, Mark. Their targets are infidels. People either subscribe to their religious beliefs, or be branded as infidels. I wish someone in the major news media would have the guts to just say it like it is. These guys are radical Muslims, not people who want to be educated about having misguided ideals.
These guys are willing (sometimes prefering to die) for whatever their cause happens to be for the moment. How do you compete with that level of dedication?
You don't reason with people like that. You kill them or they kill you. It all comes down to who's going home at the end of the day...him or me.
I would choose me.
You're missing my point, JP. My point is that killing them doesn't stop or reduce the number of new ones created. The attitude lives beyond the physical means with which it is carried out. This is the problem... and it requires a solution of some kind. It's a long road that's travelled in small steps that probably require a lot of time, but we can do it.. with the help of the rest of the world.
It's a nebulous concept, to be sure, but it's something we have to do or else the whole Middle East is going to be like Chechnya.. constant violence.. constant death.. for eternity.
Mark: I agree with you, and I'm surprised you're not a big supporter of President Bush, considering his plan is pretty much the same as yours.
Russia's problem is that they can kill all the terrorists they want in Chechyna, but as long as there are other sources in other countries they'll never get them all. This is another great example of how all of these Islamic terror problems are linked, and none of them can be treated individually. Just about every major threat in the world right now, aside from North Korea, revolves around Islamofascism. Do you see why Iraq was a crucial step now, as the low-hanging fruit?
No, Iraq is still a mistake to me.
Mark: I did miss your point. I fuly agree with your response. I'm curious, why the disagreement with our action in Iraq?
JP: I think Iraq was a distraction from the WoT. I think all we've done is removed a bad power figure and turned Iraq into a vacuum... attracting every kind of terrorist. We've exchanged an enemy we know for many enemies we hardly know at all. The Iraqi people don't appear to want their independence very bad, which means only more of a burden on us.
I disagree with Kerry on Iraq... and I disagree with Bush on Iraq (among other things).
That's how I feel.
Mark: So if we'd attacked Iran after Afghanistan you would have been on board?
MW: Possibly. Attacks are different from invasions, though.
Mark: I didn't mean to make a distinction in my comment, but you're right, attacks and invasions are different. It's hard to see how attacks without invasion would accomplish much though. So would you have wanted an invasion of Iran?
I think we'll get to Iran if Bush gets reelected. Kerry would never.
I think an invasion of Iran would yield the same negative results as the invasion of Iraq.
A vacuum sucking all the islamic terrorists into Iraq, where our marines are waiting to dispatch them is a great idea. Sure beats the previous vacuum, where they were all gravitating to NYC and DC...
Marty, do you read the news? It's not a matter of having 'A vacuum sucking all the islamic terrorists into Iraq, where our marines are waiting to dispatch them'. These terrorists don't just sit up like ducks waiting to be shot. They slaughter soldiers, Iraqi civilians, Italians, Nepalese, journalists... you name it. Why do you celebrate the fact that Iraqis must suffer terrorism now too? An American civilian in NY is worth more than an Iraqi in Baghdad? That is a disgusting suggestion. I think it remains to be seen if this 'vacuum' prevents them attacking the US, since Al Qaeda is an ideology not an organisation. It isn't localised in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.