|URL is http://emperors-clothes.com/news/litvin.htm
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send the link to
this text to a friend. If you're reading this in
email, please forward this article or the link to
Question: When is a Terrorist not
Answer: When he's Killing Russians
Article by Dmitry
Litvinovich, reprinted from www.pravda.ru
Headline and comment by Jared Israel and Nico
[Posted 2 November 2002]
Emperor's Clothes: The Chechen Islamist
terrorists are among the world's most vicious,
and that's not hyperbole. They're famous for
putting people in basement dungeons and killing
them slowly. They're the folks who took over a
Russian hospital a few years back and slaughtered
the patients. But when they seized a Moscow
theater a week ago, Western TV networks avoided
that ugly word, 'terrorist.' Moreover, as Mr.
Litvinovich notes in the article posted below, it
wasn't only Western news stations that developed
linguistic reticence. For example, here are
Secretary of State Colin Powell's comments on the
Moscow theater attack:
from Powell's Oct. 23 News Conference]
Mr. Secretary, have you heard anything from
Moscow on the situation there in the theater?
POWELL: No, I have not, I've been following
our reports from the State Department
Operations Center, but I'm sure I'll learn
more in the course of the evening. It's a *tragic
situation*, it shows us once again the kind
of world we're living in where innocent
people can be *put at this kind of risk* and
*I hope the Russian authorities* will be able
to resolve this peacefully without any loss
of life."[Our emphasis]
from Powell's Oct. 23 News Conference]-
situation." "People...put at...risk."
Note that there is
nothing here about the war on terror or giving
terrorists no safe harbor or the rest of the Bush
administration rhetoric when the victim is Russia.
And note that
Powell expresses his ''hope'' that "Russian
authorities will be able to resolve this
peacefully without any loss of life." Frames
the terrorist attack as a kind of unfortunate
negotiation, doesn't it? Even puts the onus on
the Russians, should "loss of life"
take place. And note the passive voice - life is
*lost*, not taken. Powell uses this passive voice
throughout the quote. In the "tragic"
"kind of world" we live in, terrorists
never actually murder people.
At least not when
the people are Russians.
Here's the article
by Dmitry Litvinovich
- Jared Israel
& Nico Varkevisser
For CNN, and
actually not only for CNN, the Russian Government
and Chechen rebels are almost the same thing.
Already several hours after [the
terrorist leader] Baraev captured the audience of
the musical Nord-Ost, the main site of Chechen
militants kavkaz.org became practically
inaccessible. The reason why the main
information center of the terrorists broke
down so soon is easy to guess. Just after the
start of the events, the universally known TV
company CNN started to add two links to all its
publications about the Moscow tragedy
bringing to Russian Information Centre (official
Internet resource of the Russian Government) and
to the site kavkaz.org.
It is very curious how they characterize the
links: Russian Government: Official Information
and Pro-rebel Website: kavkaz.org.
Now, about the word rebel. It is too
weak and too respectful. It is a traditional
characteristic of revolutionary parties. Irish
separatists are rebels, soldiers of General
Washington in time when American colonies battled
for their independence from Great Britain were
rebels as well. However, brothers-in-arms of bin
Laden are terrorists. Do you see the difference?
If you do not trust me, you can look it up. It
would be enough just to look through a few CNN
articles about bin Laden.
Chechen gunmen are still rebels to CNN. For
example the article Theatre Gunmen Fire at
Escapers. The author never calls the
Chechens the politically incorrect word terrorist;
however, there are anti-terrorist forces
in the article.
So, how do the US journalists call the Baraev
killers? Very blandly: Chechen gunmen,
Chechen guerrillas, Chechen
rebels, and finally Chechen
dissidents. Though, these Chechens are
never called killers or terrorists.
The most troublesome thing is that CNN is not
alone in its sympathy for Caucasian bandits: The
Associated Press - Chechen rebels, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
- Chechen rebels and Chechen guerrillas.
Why? We know that the hostage-taking in Moscow
and the terrorist acts of September 11 in New-York
and Washington are links of one chain. Vladimir
Putin said directly: the terrorist act in
Moscow was planned outside of Russia.
If this is so, and Americans admit it, why do
well-known TV and radio channels continue to have
sympathy for the Chechens. For, the question is
not about the Russian President who was first
presented his condolences to the US after the
September 11 tragedy. The question is that here
is about double standards: there are good rebels
and bad terrorists.
Today, the US representative to the Asian and
Pacific Countries summit, Lawrence Greenwood,
said that the US considers the hostage-taking in
Moscow as a form of terrorism. He
said that the US government agrees that the
attack on the theatre in Moscow could be
characterized as a terrorist act.
Yes, we can see here that this is a form of
terrorism, Greenwood said. Following
the US leaderships logic, the terrorists
are under US TV and radio channels patronage. Is
it a rebellion?
(C) 2002 www.pravda.ru* Posted for Fair Use Only