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 friends
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/litvin.htm

==========================================================
Question: When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist?
Answer: When he's Killing Russians
Article by Dmitry Litvinovich, reprinted from www.pravda.ru
Headline and comment by Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser
[Posted 2 November 2002]
==========================================================

Comment from 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:

[Start excerpt from Powell's Oct. 23 News Conference]

"QUESTION: 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]
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2002/14603.htm

[End excerpt from Powell's Oct. 23 News Conference]-

A "tragic 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 leadership’s 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