Russians probe al-Qa'eda link as a number of Arab fighters were among hostage tackers

telegraph.co.uk ^ | 27/10/2002 | Christina Lamb and Ben Aris

[Tom Jefferson]

This is a copy of a letter to the Editor I wrote to the Los Angeles Times today:

Editor,

While I know that honest, unbiased and fair reporting seem to be concepts difficult for the Los Angeles Times to grasp, I am still curious as to why, in reporting about the Chechyn terrorists who captured 800 hostages at the theater in Moscow, they are referred to as "Militants" or "Rebels", but no mention is made that they are Moslem terrorists and that there were several Arabs among them from Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Is the Times too concerned about not offending people that it has to color the truth? Whatever happened to objective and truthful reporting?

[Tom Jefferson]

BTTT

[Dante3]

What a surprise!. Again Saudie Arabian involvement.

We are wasting our time with Iraq. Our real enemy is in Mecca.

[Dante3]

What a lovely photo. Sleep of the Jihad maidens.

[Dante3]

"Why is Bush hanging back on the Saudis?"

Since you asked such a pertinent question - I will answer you. The clever, crafty Saudis have been able to convince President Bush that the Iraqis are the enemies of the US. What better way to deflect attention from themselves. Iraq is to Saudi Arabian muslim fanatics, as Serbia was to Albanian Muslim fanatics.

We are again being played for a sucker. I wish we could muster our forces to get rid of the fanatics in Saudi Arabia, but I am afraid President Bush has dug himself into a deep hole and can't reverse his course.

[anymouse]

How do you say, "Let's roll" in Russian? "Pokatili" according to Russian FReeper, Ivan Ivanov.

D@mn reporters can't bear to admit that regular civilians are capable of
defending themselves from evil preditors like these Chechen terrorists.
They have to paint them as "panicked" and "desperate."

I say these brave Russian citizens deserve medals. I suspect Russian
President Putin and the members of the Duma will agree.

[Cachelot]

If this were here in the USA the media might have actually covered the story.

If this was in the US, I could see Pravda covering it truthfully. Not the American media. Sad.

[sheik yerbouty]

The surviving jihadists should be probed by a hot poker.

[Hugin]

If this was in the US, I could see Pravda covering it truthfully.

Not me. Pravda is still run by Communists.

[Cachelot]

Not me. Pravda is still run by Communists.

And you think the American press isn't? The difference is that the Russian press has been moving rightward for some time, and is becoming more credible. The American press may do the same sometime, but it still seems stuck in CNN mode.

[Hugin]

And you think the American press isn't?

Did I say that? There are indeed a lot of 60s new-left Marxists running some US newspapers (the NY and LA Times come to mind in particular), not to mention most journalism schools. And yeah, most of the TV news is leftwing. That doesn't make Pravda better. It's still the official organ of the Russian Communist party as far as I know. The big difference in Russia is that there are now competing points of view. Kind of like how CNN now has Fox News to deal with.

[Cachelot]

The big difference in Russia is that there are now competing points of view.

There are. But that isn't such a quantum leap as it may seem. There were always competing points of view within the old one-party structure. The big thing about Pravda nowadays is that it's moving towards reporting news without any flavoring, instead of doing what they did before where everything was looked at through a red glass.

But even that isn't altogether new. The old "soviet era" pravda did publish a straight newspaper. Pravda was available in two variants: the standard pap for the sheeple, and another, more factual one, for apparatsjiks. They were published on different-colored paper (can't remember the colors now) but it was probably partly to ensure that a "dangerous" one wouldn't be carelessly left on a bus seat or something.