Posted on 05/09/2002 10:57:27 PM PDT by Spar
U.S. Calls Bomb Blast in Russia an 'Atrocity'
Thu May 9, 5:10 PM ET
By Elaine Monaghan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States condemned as an "atrocity" a blast near the Russian region of Chechnya (news - web sites) on Thursday that killed at least 34 people, including 12 children, saying it looked like terrorism but declining to blame the attack on Chechen separatist guerrillas.
"We were saddened to learn of the bomb blast," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told a news briefing after the attack that also injured more than 150 people and scattered bodies where a Russian Victory Day parade had been taking place.
"Many of the victims were elderly and were children. Our sincere condolences go out to the Russian people and the victims' families," he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) blamed the attack in the Caspian Sea port of Kaspiisk on "terrorists," the usual Kremlin term to describe separatist Chechen rebels.
Boucher drew no link with Moscow's battle in the north Caucasus region of Chechnya, the scene of two conflicts between separatists and Russian forces since the 1990s and bordering the region of Dagestan where the blast occurred.
"We strongly condemn this cowardly and violent act. We look forward to seeing the perpetrators of these attacks brought to justice," Boucher said.
"I don't think at this point we have a sense of who's responsible for committing this atrocity. I have to say it looks like terrorism plain and simple, and the first issue therefore is to find, identify and punish the perpetrators," he added.
Boucher said U.S. views on Chechnya, which are that Moscow should seek a political settlement to the conflict and that there is no military solution, were unchanged.
U.S.-Russian relations have flourished since attacks by Islamic militant followers of Saudi exile Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon (news - web sites) near Washington on Sept. 11 that killed about 3,000 people.
President Bush (news - web sites) is due to visit Russia this month for summit talks with Putin.
Both men have made fighting terrorism a hallmark of their presidencies. Putin has emphasized alleged links between some of the Chechen guerrillas and bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
The State Department revived references to the alleged connections after Sept. 11 in an apparent reward to Putin, the first foreign leader to reach Bush after the U.S. attacks.
Putin, drawing parallels with his people's suffering in a series of apartment-building bombings that Moscow blamed on Chechens, announced an interest in political talks shortly afterward, although they have come to nothing.
Concerned by the scale of Russia's campaigns in which thousands of civilians have been killed and the Chechen capital, Grozny, virtually reduced to rubble, Washington has tried to encourage Putin to differentiate between terrorism and Chechens who seek independence for their mountainous, mainly Muslim region.
'What we know if we look at the 85 exonerations nationwide since 1976 is that the average time that people spent on Death Row was 7½ years before new evidence came to light...'
And what is your point here? You are using statistics out of context.
The point is that by shortening the maximum time before execution to 5 years Jeb Bush is making it easier to execute innocent people. This is because the average time that a convicted murderer spent on death row before evidence came to light that exonerated them was 7.5 years.
Should police stop arresting people because some innocent (and a lot more then are executed) get caught? At what point is society to suffer as a whole so that not a mistake is made?
Of course the Police should not stop arresting people. That is not what I am suggesting, as far as I am concerned if only one innocent person is executed - that is one too many. If the death penalty is revoked then there will be no chance of innocent people being executed. Society will not suffer because the convicted murderers will be in prison for life. If evidence comes to light that exonerates someone then there can be an appeal and that individual can be released. If someone has been found innocent after they were executed then anything you do for them is just window dressing.
...so that makes for a less then 1% failure rate...yup, I'd say that's pretty damn good when you throw in that it's human beings doing this.
Even a 0.01% failure rate would be too high. Obviously, the lives of innocent people mean nothing to you.
You see, here you are again using emotions and not logic...as usual. Well, lets see, why is it that all poor people aren't thieves and robbers and murderers then?
If someone has been brought up without a decent education and without any parental guidance, then it is hardly right to jail them the first time they commit an offence, especially if they are still minors. I don't believe, however, that they should just be released with a warning. It would be better to send them to a secure residential facility where they could be educated and trained in an occupation. Instead, of just locking them up for 5 years in a prison or borstal, where they will just be further corrupted.
Again, you avoid the arguement. This isn't about Russia, never said that the police department didn't need clearing out in the Rodina. This is about your claims of how clean the British system is and how peaceful England is. Don't change the subject.
Actually, you changed the subject. I originally asked you to explain why we should want to get involved with Russia, given its lack of respect for human rights, its fundamentally flawed democracy, its lack of justice and the corruptness of its institutions. Who would you rather be arrested by, the British Police, or the Russian Police?
Fact is, through out the US, a liberalization of gun ownership laws is followed by a drop in crime.
There are more incidents of deadly violence in the USA and because of the easy availability of firearms there is always the potential for a massacre.
As for school shootings, you are full of it. Look at Germany with it's strict laws...problem that all you liberals seems to miss, is that criminals don't follow laws regardless of how strict they are....that (gasp!) is why they are called criminals!
The weapons that German used were owned legally. If firearms were strictly prohibited he would not have been able to carry out that massacre. In 1987, in Britain, we had the Hungerford massacre, afterwards the Government tightened the gun ownership laws. The perpetrator of the Hungerford massacre owned the AK47 assault rifle he used legally. Note the following quote:
'On 15 July 1987 Ryan travelled to the pretty Wiltshire market town of Westbury, where he made for Westbury Guns, situated at 12 Edward Street. The shop’s presentation was typically ‘county’, with stuffed vermin and books such as Shooting Made Easy in its olde-world windows. Nigel Shirnwell. greeted Ryan. It was not the first time they had met. Before long a £310 transaction had been agreed. Ryan produced his credit card once again, and paid a £50 deposit, and then pulled out his firearms certificate and driving licence. This was sufficient documentation to persuade the gun dealer to allow Ryan to pay off the balance, with interest, over a period of months.
The upshot of the deal was that Ryan returned to his car with a Chinese ‘Norinco’ version of the famous Russian fully-automatic Kalashnikov AK47 assault rifle tucked under his arm. This weapon, known as the ‘widowmaker’ by the IRA, and favoured by terrorists all over the world, is extremely powerful, and capable of firing thirty times faster than a finger can pull the trigger, with each magazine holding thirty rounds.
Despite the terrifying nature of the rifle’s firepower, during the summer of 1987 thousands of AK47s were available over the counter and by mail order in Britain at bargain basement prices. In fact, had Ryan shopped around, he could have obtained an identical weapon for £50 less. It was on sale to anyone with a firearms certificate for a standard 7.62min target, and more often than not, credit was readily available too. The certificate itself cost just £12.' From here.
Then there was the Dunblane massacre on Wednesday the 13th of March, 1996. In that massacre a teacher and her 16 young pupils were killed when Thomas Hamilton opened fire in the Dunblane Primary School gym. Hamilton owned the weapons he used legally. In the wake of that atrocity a total handgun ban was rejected in the Commons but legislation was brought in to ban guns of .22 calibre and above and to restrict smaller calibre weapons to secure gun clubs. The logic being, the less guns circulating, the less chance of another massacre occurring.
'What we know if we look at the 85 exonerations nationwide since 1976 is that the average time that people spent on Death Row was 7½ years before new evidence came to light...'
And what is your point here? You are using statistics out of context.
The point is that by shortening the maximum time before execution to 5 years Jeb Bush is making it easier to execute innocent people. This is because the average time that a convicted murderer spent on death row before evidence came to light that exonerated them was 7.5 years.
Should police stop arresting people because some innocent (and a lot more then are executed) get caught? At what point is society to suffer as a whole so that not a mistake is made?
Of course the Police should not stop arresting people. That is not what I am suggesting, as far as I am concerned if only one innocent person is executed - that is one too many. If the death penalty is revoked then there will be no chance of innocent people being executed. Society will not suffer because the convicted murderers will be in prison for life. If evidence comes to light that exonerates someone then there can be an appeal and that individual can be released. If someone has been found innocent after they were executed then anything you do for them is just window dressing.
...so that makes for a less then 1% failure rate...yup, I'd say that's pretty damn good when you throw in that it's human beings doing this.
Even a 0.01% failure rate would be too high. Obviously, the lives of innocent people mean nothing to you.
You see, here you are again using emotions and not logic...as usual. Well, lets see, why is it that all poor people aren't thieves and robbers and murderers then?
If someone has been brought up without a decent education and without any parental guidance, then it is hardly right to jail them the first time they commit an offence, especially if they are still minors. I don't believe, however, that they should just be released with a warning. It would be better to send them to a secure residential facility where they could be educated and trained in an occupation. Instead, of just locking them up for 5 years in a prison or borstal, where they will just be further corrupted.
Again, you avoid the arguement. This isn't about Russia, never said that the police department didn't need clearing out in the Rodina. This is about your claims of how clean the British system is and how peaceful England is. Don't change the subject.
Actually, you changed the subject. I originally asked you to explain why we should want to get involved with Russia, given its lack of respect for human rights, its fundamentally flawed democracy, its lack of justice and the corruptness of its institutions. Who would you rather be arrested by, the British Police, or the Russian Police?
Fact is, through out the US, a liberalization of gun ownership laws is followed by a drop in crime.
There are more incidents of deadly violence in the USA and because of the easy availability of firearms there is always the potential for a massacre.
As for school shootings, you are full of it. Look at Germany with it's strict laws...problem that all you liberals seems to miss, is that criminals don't follow laws regardless of how strict they are....that (gasp!) is why they are called criminals!
The weapons that German used were owned legally. If firearms were strictly prohibited he would not have been able to carry out that massacre. In 1987, in Britain, we had the Hungerford massacre, afterwards the Government tightened the gun ownership laws. The perpetrator of the Hungerford massacre owned the AK47 assault rifle he used legally. Note the following quote:
'On 15 July 1987 Ryan travelled to the pretty Wiltshire market town of Westbury, where he made for Westbury Guns, situated at 12 Edward Street. The shop’s presentation was typically ‘county’, with stuffed vermin and books such as Shooting Made Easy in its olde-world windows. Nigel Shirnwell. greeted Ryan. It was not the first time they had met. Before long a £310 transaction had been agreed. Ryan produced his credit card once again, and paid a £50 deposit, and then pulled out his firearms certificate and driving licence. This was sufficient documentation to persuade the gun dealer to allow Ryan to pay off the balance, with interest, over a period of months.
The upshot of the deal was that Ryan returned to his car with a Chinese ‘Norinco’ version of the famous Russian fully-automatic Kalashnikov AK47 assault rifle tucked under his arm. This weapon, known as the ‘widowmaker’ by the IRA, and favoured by terrorists all over the world, is extremely powerful, and capable of firing thirty times faster than a finger can pull the trigger, with each magazine holding thirty rounds.
Despite the terrifying nature of the rifle’s firepower, during the summer of 1987 thousands of AK47s were available over the counter and by mail order in Britain at bargain basement prices. In fact, had Ryan shopped around, he could have obtained an identical weapon for £50 less. It was on sale to anyone with a firearms certificate for a standard 7.62min target, and more often than not, credit was readily available too. The certificate itself cost just £12.' From here.
Then there was the Dunblane massacre on Wednesday the 13th of March, 1996. In that massacre a teacher and her 16 young pupils were killed when Thomas Hamilton opened fire in the Dunblane Primary School gym. Hamilton owned the weapons he used legally. In the wake of that atrocity a total handgun ban was rejected in the Commons but legislation was brought in to ban guns of .22 calibre and above and to restrict smaller calibre weapons to secure gun clubs. The logic being, the less guns circulating, the less chance of another massacre occurring.
Am I a liberal because I don't like the idea of executing innnocent people? How would you like it, if you, or someone you love, was innocent but was convicted of murder and faced execution?
Sorry, about that last post going up twice, the FTP froze the first time.
Take a look here, to see that every gun that German used was fully licensed.
Also its interesting to note that because he failed only one exam his entire secondary education diploma was forfeited. He became depressed, started to absent himself from school and was finally expelled. A quote you may find interesting is below from here:
Mr. Steinhaeuser failed to qualify to take the rigorous school-leaving examination last year and was forced to repeat the final year. But he was expelled in February for forging absentee excuses — a humiliation he concealed from his mother.
"He desperately needed his high school diploma for status, but when that failed his world collapsed around him," the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel wrote.
The loss of the diploma and dashed hopes of attending college sent him into a tailspin, the magazine postulated.
"It was a death sentence for the young man," Der Spiegel said. "It was a disgrace which he kept secret from everyone, even his own family. That's what led him to seek revenge on Friday with the executions and punishment."
Even a 0.01% failure rate would be too high. Obviously, the lives of innocent people mean nothing to you.
WRONG, I've got a lot of respect for human life, the lives of the victems. A lot fewer people die when the death penatly is enforced then the 3 in 400 through it's mistakes. It's something you fail to get. Maybe as England continues to become more and more barbaric, you'll figure it out...hopefully before it's to late for you.
Dunblane massacre
Let me give you a little hint, if you are a nut you'll find any way to kill people. In the early 80's, a nut like this one drove his car into a crowd of pedatrians in NYC...killing 12. To bad the US didn't pass a tough AUTO BAN...who knows how many lives could be saved. Here's another hint, Amonia mixed with Chloride produces Amonia-Chloride gas...very toxic....can kill many people...should house hold detergents be banned?
Another favorite of the liberals, use the extreme nut job as the center weight of an arguement...as if the nut job is the status que norm. Sorry, again, I was taught to think for myself and figure these things out...so do most people on FR. You'll fail miserably in your task here. You see, statistics on Britian and Australia speak much louder then liberal BS emotional arguements and the statistics show the full failure of the liberal policies. To bad liberals never learn until it's to late...some times not even then.
You are of course, welcome to your opinion, but here in the US we tend to believe that a person is responsible for their actions. We don't merely execute people who have murdered someone, those are the people who usually receive life sentences. We reserve the death penalty for those who have murdered in such a heineous manner to be beyond belief. The shortening of the appeal process is due to the fact that we now have DNA available.
If you find the death penalty so repugnant, you can live in one of the countries who do not allow the death penalty. We don't condemn them, and frankly, they shouldn't condemn us. That's why we live here, and they live there. This would be a much nicer world if everyone would keep their noses planted firmly in their own business.
If that German student, Hamilton and Ryan had not been able to get firearms so easily then those masacres would not have occurred. The fact that Ryan was able to buy a fully automatic weapon is ridiculous. Don't you realise that by making it so easy to get firearms you are guaranteeing trouble?
As for that German, he was hardly a hardened criminal, the man only had a speeding ticket! What he did may have been a spur of the moment thing, he hadn't owned a firearms license for long. If he hadn't had a shot gun and a pistol I doubt he would have killed anyone.
Making home made explosives or a gas bomb that can kill large numbers of people is a lot harder than shooting people. Ammonia chloride is an expectorant. I think you will find its ammonia mixed with sodium hypochlorite (the active agent in bleach) produces chlorine gas. Besides, banning cars and bleach etc is hardly the same as banning firearms, since guns can be used to kill far more easily and effectively.
As I said above its the innocent people who are executed that I'm concerned about.
We reserve the death penalty for those who have murdered in such a heineous manner to be beyond belief.
How can you ever be sure that you have caught the perpetrator? Isn't life imprisonment just as effective at removing someone from society?
The shortening of the appeal process is due to the fact that we now have DNA available.
Do you think that DNA evidence isn't open to tampering like any other evidence. For example, the way blood was planted by the Police during O. J. Simpson's murder investigation.
If you find the death penalty so repugnant, you can live in one of the countries who do not allow the death penalty.
I do, I live in England.
But you avoided the abortion question. So are you for or against it? Please, aren't the innocent lives of children worth crusading for? I'm personally only interested in saving the innocent ones.
We have faith in our system. No, life in prison is not adequate for the types of crimes that warrent the death penalty. We are not talking about the type of crime where someone merely shoots another in a fit of passion. We are talking about people who hack someone to death with an axe. No, life in prison is NOT adequate. Perhaps you haven't seen our prisons. Private cells, telephone, TV, computer access, better food than many of us have, rent furnished, no worry about keeping a job. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
People have to know that there are consequences for their actions. Everyone here in the states knows that the consequences are death. It's their own choice.
You see, we believe in individual responsibility. There are many freedoms here, we expect people to deal well with those freedoms and the opportunities that are the birthright of all Americans. A recent study has come out that says that even our poorest citizens live better then the middleclass in Sweden. What excuse is there for failure to obey the simple law that says "Don't KILL"?
You can not be paralyzed by fear that you will make a mistake. You have to enforce the laws as best you can. We have a lengthy proceedure to assure that an innocent man is not executed. As to DNA, the prosecutor, the defense, and usually a third party conducts the tests. If these tests do not match, then there is "reasonable doubt", nobody can be executed when there is reasonable doubt.
There was recently a man who raped and killed his daughter who claimed innocence. His execution was stayed because there was reasonable doubt. DNA samples were taken and when they came back it was found that the skin beneath the nails of the child was her fathers, and the semen was his as well. He was executed. He was executed, he should have been. Can you think of any crime as heineous as raping and killing your own child? How long do you think this man would have lived in prison? Instead of being left to the mercy of his fellow inmates, he was gently put to sleep.
We do not hang people, nor pump their bodies full of electricity, we show them much more kindness then they showed to their victems. It is not an easy thing, and it's something that we do not relish, but it is a duty that we owe to each other as human beings to make sure that those among us who are unable to follow the simple rules are taken care of in a way that will leave the rest of us as safe as is possible.
There is no evidence that the death penalty has any more deterrent value than life in prison with no possibility of parole. The death penalty was revoked in Britain over 30 years ago and the murder rate has gone up and down within the same range that it did during the time we had capital punishment.
If the death penalty is about deterrence then why does the US execute people who have been shown to be mentally ill? Obviously, they would not have been deterred by the death penalty.
There was recently a man who raped and killed his daughter who claimed innocence... Can you think of any crime as heineous as raping and killing your own child?
No, I can not. Anyone who could do that obviously isn't in a rational state of mind to begin with. Therefore, I doubt that they even considered the punishment should they be caught. Also many of the people who commit terrible crimes like this and the mass-murderers: Ryan and Hamilton, committed suicide afterwards. Thus they would not have been detered by the death penalty anyway.
The use of the death penalty in America is about revenge, not deterrence. Personally, If I had committed a capital offence I would prefer to die painlessly and quickly rather than spend 40 years in prison living with what I had done. Perhaps, American prisons are better than British prisons, but they are still full of extremely unpleasant individuals, so I'd rather not spend 40 years in one. Why do you think so many people are willing to do suicide bombings - because they will not have to live with the consequences.
The problem is that innocent people have been executed in the USA and will continue to be executed. The money that is saved by the US government by executing people is at the expense of the lives of innocent people - what could be more immoral than that?
I meant if you were innocent of the crime of which you stood accused.
Apparently, in order to "solve" at least 99.2% of the crimes committed each year, the Russian Police torture almost half the people they arrest. The most worrying thing is that they consistently get away with it.
How about this, take a cannister of gas, pour in liquid detergent and a small explosive device...several large fire crackers...know what you've got? Napalm....yup that easy to make. So should we ban gas and detergent?
Firearms when used for the purpose for which they were designed can kill very effectively. The things you cite can not. That's also why explosives like TNT, C4 and Semtex are illegal.
But you avoided the abortion question. So are you for or against it?
Against it.
I'm personally only interested in saving the innocent ones.
Oh really, but you're perfectly happy to write off at least 5,000 Russian conscripts each year. Not to mention supporting the resurrection of Russia's death penalty, which would kill the 1/3rd of all people convicted of capital offences who are innocent, since they were tortured to make them sign falsified confessions.
As for the conscripts and abortion, I'm a realist. I realize that to much change in an unstable environment almost always leads to much much more bloodshed...again, go study history. As for the unborn, I am also a realist, there is no reason to destroy their lives. I don't like the fact that conscripts die, but it is a system that will take time and money to change not over night and not a radical shift. When you get over your idealistic zeal, you'll realize that, maybe.
He keeps trying to switch the argument to the state of Russian prisons. As far as I can tell, he was well trained...or under the misguided opinion that we on FR, the dark primitives only need to be presented by these "enlightened" arguments and will quickly see the "light" and head on over. He's used a lot of hysterical emotions rather then numbers, which when I brought them up (like the fact that the error rate on executions is less then 1% over a 27 year period), he quickly resorts back to emotions. What can I say?
What you described earlier is not Napalm. Napalm is a mixture of petrol, phosphorus and a powerful oxidising agent. You might as well argue that we should ban petrol since that could be used to set someone on fire.
The point is that firearms when used for the purpose for which they were designed can kill large numbers of people quickly and effectively.
...refuses to acknowledge the failure of the Blair government and its gun control, criminal cuddling.
The British government has always frowned upon the use of firearms for personal or home protection, whether or not the ruling party is Labour or Conservative. It just isn't seen as the British way. That's why your idea about the older generation taking control and bringing back liberal gun laws and capital punishment is so silly. My Father and Uncle are both right-wingers who served in the British army and neither of them believe that encouraging people to protect themselves with firearms would be a good idea. You forget that the British people are subjects not citizens and historically the Government did not want its subjects to be armed. Personally, I am a Republican and want Britain to abolish the Monarchy, abolish the House of Lords and adopt a Constitution.
Capital punishment was revoked over 30 years ago, and is not seen as a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment in Britain. Also since there have been some well publicised cases of innocent people being convicted for capital crimes, then I doubt anyone, apart from the BNP, will revive it.
As for criminal cuddling, I agree that persistent juvenile offenders are often just let off with a caution. It would be better if they were taken away from their useless parents and educated by the state. I doubt that throwing them in prison would help, since they don't know the difference between right and wrong to start off with.
He keeps trying to switch the argument to the state of Russian prisons.
The state of Russian institutions and their ingrained corruption was originally the subject, which you avoided by changing the subject to the British state's practises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.