Basayev broadcast enrages Russia

[rcne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4727211.stm

Russia has put a $10m bounty on Shamil Basayev's head Russia says it is outraged by an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev broadcast on America's ABC television network. The Russian foreign ministry summoned a senior US diplomat in Moscow to express its "strong indignation" over the show. In the interview, the warlord, who had claimed the 2004 raid on a school in Beslan, admitted he was a terrorist but said the Russians were terrorists too. Russia's most wanted man also warned of further Beslan-type attacks. More than 320 people - around half of them children - were killed in the attack at the school in September. Russia is offering $10m (£6m) for the capture of the warlord, who it also accuses of several other major attacks. Condemnation The interview with Shamil Basayev - recorded at his hideout in Chechnya - was aired on ABC's Nightline programme on Thursday ....The warlord also refused to accept responsibility for the deaths of children killed in Beslan, blaming instead Russian authorities

What the Hell was Nightline doing??? I can say no more - yes I can - whoever approved this should be fired and never work in anything the public can view again. Talk about supporting terriorist by giving them media exposure, this just enrages me. @#$@@ .

[Tesserakt]

It's like Russia interviewing OBL, and letting him tell the whole world about how the US is the real terrorist state. Unbelievable.

I wonder if ABC would do the same the thing for bin Laden or Al-Zarahiri.

[ibm]

there are bad terrors, there are good terrors. terrors in others’ homeland, good. it’s only the instability and tragedies of others that can give us opportunities to contribute to “stabilization” of the region (or “regime”).

on a second thought, all terrors are good. even the bad ones on our own land can be easily turned good. good “reasons” to tighten up and do what have been said a long long time.

[rcne]

Quote by: Tesserakt It's like Russia interviewing OBL, and letting him tell the whole world about how the US is the real terrorist state. Unbelievable. I wonder if ABC would do the same the thing for bin Laden or Al-Zarahiri.

Exactly, after the massacre at the school, I had hoped that we (westerners) would realize that Russia has it's own terrorist problems and that we should aid them in any way possible.

By our moronic "News Media" machine giving a platform to spew terrorist rhetoric, we are working against ourselves.

I couldn't stand it - and went to ABC.com and blasted them in an E-Mail. I will not watch that network or buy anything from their sponsors until I cool down - which may be awhile.

[rcne]

Trotsky Bacon Sizzle Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 199 Basayev broadcast enrages Russia BBC article here Quote: Russia says it is outraged by an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev broadcast on America's ABC television network. The Russian foreign ministry summoned a senior US diplomat in Moscow to express its "strong indignation" over the show. In the interview, the warlord, who had claimed the 2004 raid on a school in Beslan, admitted he was a terrorist but said the Russians were terrorists too So US television decides to act as a mouth piece for one of the most barbaric and cruel men on the face of the planet.........hypocrisy doesn't quiet some it up. __________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former; - Albert Einstein

I moved this here - sorry for the kludge job.

[rcne]

You want to know what's even more disturbing - search for "Basayev" on CNN - I find nothing current. How's that for a media conspiracy.

It looks like the BBC is the only viable news source on the net.

[Trotsky]

Try Reuters?

[oranged]

Quote by: rcne http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4727211.stm What the Hell was Nightline doing??? I can say no more - yes I can - whoever approved this should be fired and never work in anything the public can view again. Talk about supporting terriorist by giving them media exposure, this just enrages me. @#$@@ .

Yeah, I agree, ABC would stand to make a lot more money if they just turned him in. Did that interview even get good ratings?

[G. Adams]

If the a Russian security official had went on TV acknowledging that Russian troops had been occaisionally killing and raping the Chechen people, who, lets face it should have had their independance like everyone else, would you be complaining? What is the difference between the Russians killing Chechens and Chechens killing Russians? Because one has the backing of a state?

I havn't seen the piece, but frankly it sounds like a daring piece of journalism. I'm surprised the guy wasn't killed, if I was a terrorist and someone was asking for an interview I would assume they were a spy or an assassin. I'm glad it was shown, and I hope it gets a UK airing. Both sides of the conflict must be heard, however much I might despise both.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: G. Adams If the a Russian security official had went on TV acknowledging that Russian troops had been occaisionally killing and raping the Chechen people, who, lets face it should have had their independance like everyone else, would you be complaining? What is the difference between the Russians killing Chechens and Chechens killing Russians? Because one has the backing of a state? I havn't seen the piece, but frankly it sounds like a daring piece of journalism. I'm surprised the guy wasn't killed, if I was a terrorist and someone was asking for an interview I would assume they were a spy or an assassin. I'm glad it was shown, and I hope it gets a UK airing. Both sides of the conflict must be heard, however much I might despise both.

Would you have said the same thing about a nationally shown network TV interview of an IRA leader during their militant period??

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Zeebadee Would you have said the same thing about a nationally shown network TV interview of an IRA leader during their militant period??

Yes. But more appropriate, considering I support the IRA cause, would be a leader of the UDA or UVF. And my answer would still be the same, it's important to here both sides of the conflict.

[rcne]

I think this entire affair is just an example of reporters making the news rather than reporting it. In other words the media is directing the perceptions and editorial opinions rather than being journalists.

It's much the same,in my mind anyway, as Hollywood actors thinking that it is their duty to direct the masses to their version of the world.

ABC in this instance has just highlighted the baser qualities of media greed for ratings over journalism.

[G. Adams]

I understand where your coming from, rcne, but what is the real problem with Bayasev's views being aired? How are we to understand the debate if all we get is the views of the Russian state? Bayasev is clearly a key player in this conflict, or else the Russian state wouldn't care, so his views are important. We could gain insights into what it is that is causing this conflict, which is essential if it is to be stopped. Even if you could never sympathise or agree with the cause, surely you can at least see the benefits of this through the adage "know thy enemy".

[Tesserakt]

Quote by: G. Adams I understand where your coming from, rcne, but what is the real problem with Bayasev's views being aired? How are we to understand the debate if all we get is the views of the Russian state? Bayasev is clearly a key player in this conflict, or else the Russian state wouldn't care, so his views are important. We could gain insights into what it is that is causing this conflict, which is essential if it is to be stopped. Even if you could never sympathise or agree with the cause, surely you can at least see the benefits of this through the adage "know thy enemy".

The logistics of the conflict ceased to matter once Bayasev's people killed all those children. Those actions have made any resolution to any pre-existing conflict impossible because such action would only endorse the validity of slaughtering children as a means to conflict resolution.

Russia, in the course of the last 6 decades has killed scores more innocent children in Chechnya than Bayasev ever did. But those deaths were because of warring between states. It doesn't justify it, but it does present a vital distinction which prevents the events from being considered of equal magnitude.

People have to unite against terrorism, and our airing of the terrorist Bayasev's story is a large step backwards from the kind of protocol needed between nations who happen to find unusual access to each other's wanted terrorists.

Let's say Bayasev was hypothetically justified in what he did: The difficult concept to grasp here, is that after he ordered the deed, he is no longer justified, and in my opinion no longer elligable for any sort of interview.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zeebadee Would you have said the same thing about a nationally shown network TV interview of an IRA leader during their militant period??

A good question if your aim is to expose hypocracy.


However, this is exactly how all bi-partisan bickering gets started, and what does it have to do with the truth getting out?


What difference does it make that some people might have to be far removed from a given situation to make a clear, rational decision? Your goal should be to pick up on the wisdom of the statement, and not start a fight over personal opinion.


I know I really have no business coming down on you, but it was the perfect illustration of somebody missing the point to start a finger pointing competition. I hate finger pointing competitions because that is what all the major televised media has become in place of actual facts. It also seems oddly contagious to the viewers at home. :(

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Tesserakt The logistics of the conflict ceased to matter once Bayasev's people killed all those children. Those actions have made any resolution to any pre-existing conflict impossible because such action would only endorse the validity of slaughtering children as a means to conflict resolution. Russia, in the course of the last 6 decades has killed scores more innocent children in Chechnya than Bayasev ever did. But those deaths were because of warring between states. It doesn't justify it, but it does present a vital distinction which prevents the events from being considered of equal magnitude. People have to unite against terrorism, and our airing of the terrorist Bayasev's story is a large step backwards from the kind of protocol needed between nations who happen to find unusual access to each other's wanted terrorists. Let's say Bayasev was hypothetically justified in what he did: The difficult concept to grasp here, is that after he ordered the deed, he is no longer justified, and in my opinion no longer elligable for any sort of interview.

People also have to unite against oppressive, illiberal states, such as Russia. Should we therefore withdraw all diplomats, block trade and refuse to deal with the Russian state until it no longer exists? No, thats foolish. Just as it is foolish to completely ignore Bayasev. Even if Bayasev is not a man whom we can 'do business' with, his grievances are shared by many currently none violent Chechans. If we understand what his problems are, we can put an end to that, cutting off his supply of new recruits. If we don't deal with his grievances, he will always have new people coming to his methods, and the conflict will never end.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Milton Bradley A good question if your aim is to expose hypocracy. However, this is exactly how all bi-partisan bickering gets started, and what does it have to do with the truth getting out? What difference does it make that some people might have to be far removed from a given situation to make a clear, rational decision? Your goal should be to pick up on the wisdom of the statement, and not start a fight over personal opinion. I know I really have no business coming down on you, but it was the perfect illustration of somebody missing the point to start a finger pointing competition. I hate finger pointing competitions because that is what all the major televised media has become in place of actual facts. It also seems oddly contagious to the viewers at home. :(

All I was trying to do was to underscore the point, frequently made, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Many Americans that condemn "terrorism" now, were staunch supporters of the IRA. No "finger pointing", no "bi-partisan bickering". It's a great advantage in the propaganda business when we are the ones that get to make all the definitions. We even go so far as to define *any* action against us as "terrorism". Example? The attack on the USS Cole. Clearly a military target, yet because we decide what makes a valid military attack, those perps are terrorists.

I'd venture to guess that Bush's policies have caused the deaths of more kids than Basayev, and I don't see much validity in the claim that this is different because the kids weren't deliberately targeted. Putting a 500 lb bomb on an apartment building because it has a sniper in it may not be deliberately targetting the civilians also living there, but it sure doesn't make much difference to the dead. Castigating Basayev and giving Bush a walk doesn't make much sense to me.

[rcne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4732783.stm

Russian military freezes out ABC Russia's defence chief has barred the ministry from contact with ABC TV after the US network's interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev. Sergei Ivanov said the ministry considered ABC "persona non grata" following Thursday's broadcast. However, the foreign ministry has said it will not deny ABC accreditation. The rebel has claimed the 2004 raid on a school in Beslan. In the interview he said he was a "terrorist" but that Russians were "terrorists" too. Russia's most wanted man also said he was plotting more attacks. Condemnation "Today I have given the order to the head of the press service that not one serviceman of the defence ministry should have contact with the American television channel ABC," Mr Ivanov said in televised comments.

I support Russia's banning of ABC in Russia. Maybe the corporate suits will come under some heat for approving that misguided segment. Our double standard as to who and what a terrorist 'is' needs to be redefined in the modern world. Just because the USA doesn't classify Bayasev as a terrorist does not make him not a terrorist. To the Russian society he is a terrorist on the same level as OBL, with tactics just a vile.

Quote by: Zee I don't see much validity in the claim that this is different because the kids weren't deliberately targeted.

ZEE - lets see - deliberately invading a school with the intention of murdering children versus taking out a terrorist in a building. I'd say that is a huge difference.

[G. Adams]

Lovely, Russia cutting out another piece of the media that doesn't toe the party line. Nothing has changed in Russia, except that in the past you would at least be guaranteed a meal.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rcne ZEE - lets see - deliberately invading a school with the intention of murdering children versus taking out a terrorist in a building. I'd say that is a huge difference.

Not to the kids in the same building.