, children, is that no actual murders of children took place. Some of them may have been caught in the crossfire and some of them may have just died in unspecified ways, but, so far as I can see, Children’s BBC coverage of the massacre does not treat it as a massacre at all.
Russia holds first seige funerals.
Russian troops “end school seige”.
Timeline of Russian school seige
I support a certain amount of censorship when describing these horrors to children. For instance in the Timeline linked to above I would not include “Boy asks for water. He is bayoneted.” But to omit all mention of the twenty or so adult men who were killed at the beginning of the seige (some of whose bodies lay outside the building for two days, so don’t anyone argue that the BBC didn’t know that anyone had been killed at the time this story was written), let alone to omit all mention of the fact that the terrorists machine-gunned hundreds of fleeing children, is not protecting children from trauma but lying to them.
Re-read that timeline. You’d think the killers were the Russians.
In contrast… Israeli missile attack kills 14.
Well, it could certainly be argued that the death toll would be much lower if the Russian special forces had been more organised and hadn’t responded in such a chaotic fashion to that mysterious explosion, but your point is sound. The fact that they didn’t allow the hostages to eat or drink doesn’t indicate a willingness to let them go at all, and that isn’t reflected in the CBBC stories.
Speaking of the storming of the school, isn’t it just a total non-shock that Putin’s refusing to allow an inquiry?
BBC radio this morning described Hamas as “militants aiming to end the Israel occupation of the Gaza strip”…..presumably with whist drives and peaceful sit ins.
I’ve never seen a militant whist drive or militant peaceful sit in?
BBC News takes a different tack on the Gaza attack in this piece though …
“Palestinian militant group Hamas has sworn vengeance after 14 of its members were killed in an overnight strike by the Israeli air force on Gaza.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3633838.stm
Why give equal weight to Hamas saying that it was a kid’s summer camp on CBBC?
“militants aiming to end the Israel occupation of the Gaza strip”…..
Isn’t Hamas’s declared aim to have the present state of Israel wiped from the map, not just the end of the occupation of Gaza & the West Bank?
Yes, the BBC coverage of Beslan has been appalling. The 10 o’clock news on Friday night (the night the occupation of the school ended) spent 20 minutes rabbiting on in urgent tones about how it was all the fault of the Russian authorities for being too tough, or too lax, or something, and literally not a second on who the terrorists (sorry, ‘militants’) were, what they had done, and why they had done it. It is as if managing the taking hostage of 1,000 people in a school is a particularly easy thing to do and the Russians have been simply incompetent for not ending the whole thing quickly and easily without any loss of life.
I too was staggered by the Radio 4 news this morning which referred to Hamas as militants who are “struggling to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank”.
On this basis, the Nazis were “struggling to end the occupation of Sudetenland and Danzig”.
The BBC are either
1. stupid
2. so influenced by Orla Guerin’s propaganda
that they don’t even realise the rubbish they are talking.
The aims of Hamas are stated in their covenant. The continuance of Israel is not one of their goals.
Melanie Phillips has also picked up on this morning’s news report by the BBC.
I have found the coverage unbelievable. They have deliberately played down the influence of Islamic extremism and have instead dedicated much of their reporting to the policy of Putin in Chechnya.
Even British muslims have been found dead one muslim in Hamburg who lived with some of the Sept. 11th hijackers reported they originally trained to fight in Checnya. Yet, even with the above having been reported in the past by the BBC they still treat any claims of international terrorism as being “claims” made by Putin who they seem to think is diverting attention from his policy in Chechnya.
I cannot understand the anti Putin bias, but to play down Islamic extremist influence as some kind of figment of Putin’s imagination in the face of undeniable evidence of its existance in Chechnya is going too far.
Also Putin said it very well in this story on Channel 4 news http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/09/week_2/07_russia.html
How do you negotiate in any case with people who want to shoot kids in the back?? Even if Putin does negotiate with less hardline members of the Chechen independence movement the Islamic extremists will not be happy. That’s apart from the fact that giving into terrorist blackmail is no way to react to these children being murdered.
Why am I on here making points the BBC should be making? It drives me mad.
‘Why am I on here making points the BBC should be making? It drives me mad.’
Hey- I recognise that feeling.
Francis – I don’t understand how the realities of Islamic extremism’s influence and Putin’s boneheaded Chechnyan policies of the last five years are mutually exclusive. Can you explain what you mean?
The Russian Spec Ops guys were, as usual, let down by the inept and bureaucratic Russian officials.
It’s very difficult to keep civilians away when the incident involves children.
The problem is not Putin per se, rather the old bureaucrats who still run Russia’s institutions. But above all it’s the bastard Islamofascists who want the oil pipelines (that is their real agenda) and want to turn the Caucasus into an Islamic Empire (a strategically placed one at that).
BTW If such a situation occured in the UK, do you really think that our clapped-out and PC police and emergency services would handle it?
Remember that the priority in the UK would be making Blair and the Multi-Culti elite look good more than the hostages lives.
Superglaze, I didn’t say they were “mutually exclusive”, but when people who are motivated by radical Islam carry out mass murder of men, women and children, that aspect deserves as much or more attention than Putin’s policy in Chechnya.
The truth is the many victims of the war in Chechnya have not resorted to such evil. In a way associating this act with their grievances with Putin is worse for moderate Chechens. Like one Chechen said on Sky News, “Us Chechens get the blame for everything. They think we’re bandits and terrorists”
Does that clear things up??
Francis – regarding ordinary Chechens, you are absolutely right. I am also glad you say “as much or more attention” above, as that means we can hopefully agree on “as much”. Both influences are massively important and there’s little point in debating, from many miles away, which tips the scales. The only thing I can add here is that I think policies of non-dialogue only fan the flames of extremism – and I don’t mean discussions with the likes of Bin Laden (who doesn’t want to talk anyway), I mean discussions with moderates.
And Zevilyn – I’m hardly a fan of Blair’s, but I doubt that our government would stoop so low as to play politics with the lives of British kids (until maybe after the fact) – I can’t think of a government who would do that.
superglaze
You are continuing to try to spread the blame for the atrocity between the Islamofascists and the Russians. We heard the same type of moral equivalency after 9/11, and it is still a sick and cheap cop-out.
This is just going in circles. No John, I blame the terrorists, just like I blame the terrorists for 9/11. But what’s the lesson you want to get out of all this? It’s us against them? OK, who’s them? Think long and hard about it – if you can sum your answer up in a cosy, black/white phrase then you’ve got only half an answer.
Half-know your enemy and you’re in trouble. Personally I’m in favour of dealing with terrorism by calm, intelligent, directed and effective retaliation, rather than shooting wildly in every direction.
Well, I’d hazard a wild guess and say that radical Islam tips the scales when we are talking about shooting children in the back. I would actually border on the side of more attention being given to this aspect of the evil acts carried out in Beslan.
JohninLondon, does have a fair point. I think it’s entirely wrong to take the focus off those truly responsible for this attack by giving so much attention to Putin’s policy. By all means look at his policy and criticize it in a separate report, but to talk about these children being murdered and then go on to Putin’s policy in the next sentence is not good reporting and wrongly plays down the influence of Islamic fanaticism, which as I said is more likely a catalyst for murdering innocent young children.
superglaze,
What you call Putin’s bone headed war in Chechnya, is in fact for Russia a war of common sense. Like Bosnia and Kosovo, the war in Chechnya has always had the shadow of Islam over it and the state the “rebels” want to establish will be destined to become another Islamic basket case that will inevitably lead to the destabilizing of the whole region including Georgia. Russia would have to be insane to ever contemplate any Islamic state being set up in its south.
When the day comes, as it will, muslims start trying to carve out their own states within western Europe, then the Europeans can lecture the Russian Government how they should handle it.
I before E, anyone?!!
“Well, it could certainly be argued that the death toll would be much lower if the Russian special forces had been more organised and hadn’t responded in such a chaotic fashion to that mysterious explosion…”
As I understand the chain of events: a booby trap/bomb fell off the wall of the gymnasium and exploded, adult hostages started shoving children out of the windows to let them escape (thinking the whole place was going to explode, bombs were hung everywhere), the terrorists began shooting the children in the back as they ran, Russian troops and civilians started shooting to provide cover fire and the Special Forces advanced on the building. I don’t believe it was organized at all because of the sudden change in the situation.
They were not responding to a “mysterious explosion” they were reacting to seeing small nearly naked children being shot as they ran away.
I did not, of course, glean this information from the BBC. I got it from a number of other sources.
StinKerr – What you say is true (and also based on information revealed after I wrote the comment that you quote). Nonetheless, these are supposed to be the cream of the Russian tactical forces we’re talking about here.
Other information coming out now indicates that, because there was no effective perimeter set up – which is difficult to do, I grant you, but common sense in a situation like this – armed parents ran for the building and everything went even more tits-up than it would have.
I’m not ascribing responsibility to the forces here (before someone accuses me of doing so), but this kind of scenario should have been anticipated in the wake of such atrocities as the terrorist attack at that hospital.
Francis and BlueBeard – I still don’t understant why it’s wrong to have a dialogue with moderate Chechens, as Putin seems to believe. OK, at this exact moment I would not expect him to be pressing for talks – there was a time for that and hopefully will be again, but this is not it. Fair enough.
But to have a policy of total non-dialogue is daft and indicative of a “to hell with them” attitude.
If Putin had managed to talk with the moderates, then the radicals might be cut off at the knees by what we in the west fondly call a “political process”.
And however much some people here are salivating at the prospect of a new crusade against Islam, I’d prefer to see local solutions to local problems (apologies to LOG) avert such a catastrophe.
And Francis, tell me that your comment “Well, I’d hazard a wild guess and say that radical Islam tips the scales when we are talking about shooting children in the back” isn’t implying that Islam, more than local blood feuds that go back half a millenium, is particularly supportive of such acts. I’m sure I’m misinterpreting you…
superglaze,
“If Putin had managed to talk with the moderates, then the radicals might be cut off at the knees by what we in the west fondly call a “political process”
Funny I thought the Russians tried to deal with moderates by letting elections take place and offering a degree of autonomy to Chechnya. The predictable response from the Islamists was bombs and bullets. You seem to think that the moderates can just mysteriously make the radicals vanish into thin air. Unfortunately moderates within Islam for one reason or another don’t seem to have much influence or control over their radical wing. If they did, the moderates within Afghanistan for example would have driven out the Talaban long before 2001.
BlueBeard – OK, I wasn’t being specific enough: “a political process involving elections where serious candidates other than Moscow’s chosen are able to stand without intimidation or contrived disqualification”. Y’know, that democracy stuff.
Yes you are misinterpreting me because I’ve only talked of radical interpretations of Islam. What “local blood feuds” existed in the last acts of mass murder by Islamic extremists on 9/11 or Bali or Madrid? These people were Moroccans and Saudis and had no local feuds. The problem was their warped view of the world influenced by religious fanaticism. Let’s call a spade a spade, do you have a problem with that?
Again, you are doing just as the BBC are, making out that this kind of mass murder is a measured response to a “blood feud” in Chechnya on the part of the terrorists, with little attention given to the religious extremism that has played a massive part.
I didn’t say Putin should have a policy of not talking to moderate separatists. I said “if Putin does negotiate with less hardline members of the Chechen independence movement the Islamic extremists will not be happy” This is another aspect the BBC gave little attention to.
Thanks Francis – I just wanted to check I had a handle on what your tone was. Also, I agree that the extremists would be unhappy at Russian dialogue with the moderates – all the better for such dialogue to take place. It gets the ordinary Chechens (in this case) on board, and lessens common support for extremism.
On the blood feud point, it’s a central element to that particular area’s history. Of course 9/11 had nothing to do with blood feuds, and of course the two situations have Islamic extremism in common. All I’m saying is that such extremism, while it can be a motive by itself, seems to act as a plug-in to other causes, bringing them into a wider (albeit loose) alliance.