9/11/Russian Hostage News Check (for anyone outside the U.S.)

Something is bothering me. It's about the Russian hostage crisis in Beslan. I couldn't find more than 30 second snippits on the major news channels here in the U.S. But when I watched News World International and CNN International News I could find more. And reading on the internet, I found even more gruesome details than anything I ever saw on the television. This is, in a way, worse than our 9/11 tragedy because it involved children, the children being the target. I personally feel that this might have been a warning to the Bush administration, whose convention started the same day as the seige. This can be disputed, however, because it's also Russia's first day of school, an important day to them. Considering that not only their children go to school, but parents go with them, and it's a big day for them. So why was the worst thing going on in the world not on any of our stations?

When 9/11 happened here, all tv was cancelled and the only thing on any channel was coverage of ground zero. So I'm wondering what happened on your televisions during 9/11 or during the Russian seige. Were these events on every channel, or were they pushed off to the international channels? What was the news coverage like where you live, and you might mention what country you're in. I'm really curious to know why the latest and most terrible crisis I've ever heard of wasn't covered, but our tragedy was.

I actually found I had to scour our international news channel, SBS to find ANY details on this at all. It had apparantly slipped under the radar of all the major news services in Australia. Then I, like you Val, had to go to the net for the story to get a more in depth view/idea or what the hell was actually going on. I also, like Val, would like to know about how the broadcasts of this horrific incident were dealt in other countries?

In Australia I'd just like to add, when 9/11 happened Ground Zero was all we had, 24/7. On every station.

Nope. We had lots of coverage, but it was mostly international-type. There were definitely coverages on our various local news and other channels, but these were more the 'can you (live reporter) update us on anything new' or 'how does this event affect economics' type....not 24/7. For the Russian crisis it was considerably less. It was to be expected, of course. Something like this most affects the country it happened in.
I'm not happy with the way they give preference, though. Terrorism happens everywhere, and I don't like how special attention is given, so much more, for kids. We're even having this MSN 'put up a flower next to your name' thing. In fact, more than anything I'd say this is telling the terrorists that this particular act; of killing kids, is the right thing to do to get the world to listen up. You can bet on more terrorist attacks targeting kids or other such people now.
Essentially; terrorism is profoundly damaging and wrong in any circumstance. It shouldn't take extents 911 or Russian kids to reach us or make us stop to think.

Earlier this summer, I actually stayed VERY CLOSE to Beslan. After returning and hearing about the school, I wrote to the people I stayed with. Oddly enough, they said that it has hardly effected their life, only a few miles away. A tiny portion was on the television, they said, but life didn't seem to halt as much as it did here for 9/11. In fact, it seems America is making the huge deal out of everything, rather than Russia itself. Funny how things work.

I know in the past Chechens have been falsely targeted for terrorist activities so that the RUssian Government will have reason to kill innocent people of this minority group. Sad, but true. I wonder now how much of what the media is saying is true, and how much is fabricated. The pictures are heartbreaking, to say the least, but many of those children they show are, in fact, Chechens. Why, then, would terrorists kill their own people in order to revolt AGAINST people oppressing them?! It just doesn't make sense.

You're right it doesn't make sense. I have more questions every time I see or read another report. You'd think mass communication would actually benefit everyone in the world by showing what things are like outside your own perspective, but sadly, like Mac said, there is preference. Reporters go where the story is and have to sum up the events into a compact size to deliver to people in a short amount of time. Reporters don't really investigate anything in depth anymore, and preference is given to what is sensational and what will get people to watch the news.

UT, I wonder who our allies were when this happened. So far, it got lots of play in Australia, which makes me think it probably did the same in England, but I can't be sure. Doesn't it make you cry when you read about things like some adults enticing children with chocolate bars and then shooting them? Are they serious, did that REALLY happen?! I don't understand, things seemed so crazy when they were actually happening. I also read that the children had to drink their own urine. Surely this is the worst kind of terrorism there is, I can't imagine doing that to children no matter how mad you are at any government. You just can't do that to children, to any children. And now Psycik Psycho has me confused, that a few miles away from this incident people aren't affected. I thought there was a protest in Moscow for the vicitms? Why was Vladimir Putin saying "We are defeated," and "We showed weakness". What on earth would make him say that? What are his intentions by saying that?

Essentially, this is mass media. Or, as many have eloquently put it: 'Why I don't listen to the news any more.' Vlad and Bush and any leader involved definitely have to give a strong statement, no matter what the effects really are, and who the accidents affected. Sad thing about leaders: they pretty much can't choose to be themselves, OR assume what they think is what their whole country thinks.
The Singaporean government recently sent out a statement condemning the incident just as it did the 911 incident, but I remember asking my parents 'What the hell did Singapore have to do with all this?' and getting the response 'We have to at least be heard.' That's kinda when I gave this dramatic snort and returned to my computer gaming. :D

Something is bothering me. It's about the Russian hostage crisis in Beslan. I couldn't find more than 30 second snippits on the major news channels here in the U.S. But when I watched News World International and CNN International News I could find more. And reading on the internet, I found even more gruesome details than anything I ever saw on the television. This is, in a way, worse than our 9/11 tragedy because it involved children, the children being the target. I personally feel that this might have been a warning to the Bush administration, whose convention started the same day as the seige. This can be disputed, however, because it's also Russia's first day of school, an important day to them. Considering that not only their children go to school, but parents go with them, and it's a big day for them. So why was the worst thing going on in the world not on any of our stations?

When 9/11 happened here, all tv was cancelled and the only thing on any channel was coverage of ground zero. So I'm wondering what happened on your televisions during 9/11 or during the Russian seige. Were these events on every channel, or were they pushed off to the international channels? What was the news coverage like where you live, and you might mention what country you're in. I'm really curious to know why the latest and most terrible crisis I've ever heard of wasn't covered, but our tragedy was.

lots of news here, almost as much as on 9/11. It's a tragedy what happened there.

I've watched a report where they showed an apparent civilian running away but some people identified him as a terrorist and they hit him down, everyone was running to him and all the people have beaten him up and stabbed him to death...

I know, you shouldn't return the like but I felt a bit satisfaction... What would you do if those terrorists have killed your child and you see one of them running away in the heat of the moment?

I wasn't in Israel when the 9/11 attacks happened. I was in Australia, and like UT said it was on 24/7. Here in Israel the local news only really started to talk about the attacks in Russia when people started dying - there was more in depth talk about it in the national news, but that too wasn't really satisfactory to me. Still, when the death numbers came through it was the main headline if I'm not much mistaken.
I remember when in Australia and when the terrorism in Israel was really bad being annoyed that the international news channels only reported about the suicide bombings and not about the hundereds of other terrorist attacks. Someone I know was murdered and her death wasn't reported at all because they were going on about entertainment or politics or whatever.
In Israel this is less of a problem, or at least less of an offensive one to me, since for the most part we have very important news filling our headlines. We're still too self-focused I think but I don't remember a lot of cases where they were reporting meaningless bullshit while people were being killed elsewhere in the world.

Valasher, I don't know if disasters should be considered one against the other, but I don't think I'd say the attack in Russia was worse than those in America. It was more cold-blooded perhaps, but you have to remember that a lot more people lost their lives on 9/11. Also, it was obvious that the 9/11 attacks will have political repercussions that would affect the entire world, so maybe that can explain in part why the Russian school wasn't as widely covered. I'm still not excusing the extent to which this is ignored, just bringing a possible reason why it is so.
About Putin, I think that when he said they were defeated he meant that the Russian army was not prepared for this kind of attack and that it was negligence or at least incompetence on the part of the government. It was an apology, and if I'm not mistaken in the same speech he also gave a promise to fight and defeat this kind of terrorism.

Mac, maybe this point is off topic, but I'd think that the Chechens had brought their cause a few steps backwards now that they are known as cold-blooded kid murderers. More attention is given to kids because they are so off-limits in war that it's nauseating to see them targeted like this. The reason it's dangerous to publicise terrorism is because it tries, by definition, to make the situation seem worse than it really is. The problem would be if the Russians got frightened now like the Spanish in Iraq and pulled back, thereby inviting more massacres, but it seems that they're going to respond, most probably with crushing force, so I don't think that publicising this was wrong. I think it's important criticism on the Chechens.

Smithfan, that's interesting. I hadn't heard of that story, but I've heard of a story in Israel, maybe 20 years ago, when there was a similar terrorist seige on a school (with much less loss in life in the end), which ended with the terrorists being lynched by an Israeli mob. Not something that I'm incredibly happy with, but also not really something I can really get angry about. The parallels between these two stories are interesting. Maybe the fact that kids were being murdered made the emotions so hard to control?

About Putin, I think that when he said they were defeated he meant that the Russian army was not prepared for this kind of attack and that it was negligence or at least incompetence on the part of the government. It was an apology, and if I'm not mistaken in the same speech he also gave a promise to fight and defeat this kind of terrorism.


That's odd, because they seem to have omitted the part where he said he would fight the terrorism. I did hear that he said he will not negotiate with child killers, but I never heard him say he would fight back. Also I'm hearing that Russians will be trying to pay millions to Chechens to... what's the word? Make them content to not attack Russia anymore.

Here's how it has been here so far: hostage crisis was barely covered, when they were still hostages and no one knew how many people were inside the school being held or exactly what was going on. When it was over, and the roof collapsed, it was on the news for longer periods. And finally, just yesterday it's on all the time, I think because the Republicans control our news media, or at least corporations do, and it's better for their cause to control us through fear. But maybe I'm talking out of my ass... I don't know.

...which makes me think it probably did the same in England, but I can't be sure....



For 9/11 we had constant coverage on 2 of our 4 channels and for the school incident we had extra long news progams on all 4.

I beg to differ; FYM. Terrorism knows no limits and no boundaries; that's why in this day and age they are the highest scourge of the civilised world. The fact that they are terrorists already means they are willing to do anything for their cause no matter what their best intentions are. And the very crux of terrorism is 'the more shocking; the better'. They aren't looking for sympathy; most are past that and tired of passivity. They're looking for capitulation. And that is why we cannot expect to define limits. They do not follow them.

Thanks for the confirmation, mazman. :)

Mac, you're right about terrorism. I can't see any of them getting sympathy, but I do wonder what motivates a person to become a terrorist. I think it's anger and revenge mostly. When a person feels there's no option left but to kill as many people as possible, in the most shocking of circumstances, to get any recognition of their own suffering. OR... do you think it's not about recognition of suffering/betrayal, but actually just hunger for power? Or both?

It's hard to explain my view...I'd like very much to sympathize, but that's only when you can speak; when you can reach them and when there are leaders that can represent the whole to work with. Unfortunately in many cases especially when the terrorist incident is on-going negotiation is the last thing in mind. In these cases damage control is paramount and unfortunately that places their needs and causes last.
I'd even go as far as to say that hostage lives are expendable in most terrorist situations, but that would be a societal taboo. A little of the warrior code I idealize: those who hide behind those who cannot defend themselves should not be entertained nor spared, and the innocent must not be allowed to form a hindrance to the ultimate goals. Still; its just a view, and pretty romanticized one at that. :p

Terrorism = bad
Putin = suspect
Chechnya = wants autonomy

End result = legitmate desires, hampered by dreadful actions.

End of today's political summary...

UT, I wonder who our allies were when this happened. So far, it got lots of play in Australia, which makes me think it probably did the same in England, but I can't be sure. Doesn't it make you cry when you read about things like some adults enticing children with chocolate bars and then shooting them? Are they serious, did that REALLY happen?! I don't understand, things seemed so crazy when they were actually happening. I also read that the children had to drink their own urine. Surely this is the worst kind of terrorism there is, I can't imagine doing that to children no matter how mad you are at any government. You just can't do that to children, to any children. And now Psycik Psycho has me confused, that a few miles away from this incident people aren't affected. I thought there was a protest in Moscow for the vicitms? Why was Vladimir Putin saying "We are defeated," and "We showed weakness". What on earth would make him say that? What are his intentions by saying that?

The more I read or look into it Val, the more it sickens me to the point where I want to hurt quite a few people out there. This is a typical case of your text book 'domination syndrome'. They feel inferior, so in effect are 'getting their kicks' and boosting their own self esteem (which at some point was viciously taken away) by demeaning these poor children. I will never condone these actions. They are monsters. As Mac stated, terrorism knows no bounds, and in this particular case these bastards, preyed on the most innocent of the innocent. In short Val, yes I believe it did happen, every gory piece of information that comes to light. Why? To answer that one we'd have to get into the mindset of these monsters. I'm still avidly keeping tabs on it as it comes to pass.

In norway they talked about it all the time, we even had "extra news" on the television. When spetnaz (russian special forces) entered the school, we saw it live. The only way to stop terrorists is bullets!!

Jester, are you serious? They showed it live? That's crazy!

UT and Mac, I read and agree with your posts. Except I feel that by going after terrorists and killing the innocent hostages in the process we are not in the right. What would happen if we just ignored the terrorists? I know that sounds frightening, but would it stop the future terrorist from trying or provoke them to do more? I just feel like every time there is a terrorist act, the innocent people who lose their loved ones to it may become future terrorists themselves. Think about it, if everyone who means anything to you is dead and only you are left, what are you going to do? What will consume you to no end? The death of your loved ones is going to make you want to kill, maybe not join the terrorist who killed your loved ones, but perhaps make your own group of terrorists. I'm not sure if that's how it is, but that's how it seems.

Yes i know, and that's kinda what I feared. I didn't mean that innocent lives are always expendable; just that innocent lives cannot be allowed to get in the way too much. Too much hesitation and bending over backwards in hostage situations allowed for them to drag and worsen. What I meant was that if a SWAT or Spetsnaz etc operation would solve the problem (just as an example) with perhaps little to no collateral damage I'd say go for it. If they still wanted to spare the innocents at all cost this school situation would still have been going on as we speak, with the damage worsening each day.

Keep your comments to yourself.- UT

In Taiwan, the coverage was also pretty wide-spread...The reason it is not so widely reported in America is because the whole country is focused on the election...also, how many Americans know where Russia is, let alone what Chechnya is...?!?! Answer: About a goat beard's worth...

Speaking of special forces and swat teams, if you spent enough, you could kill the terrorists without setting foot in the building. We have the technology, but it's secret and only the U.S. can use it probably. When I read Dan Brown's (of the Davinci Code) book Deception Point, it said in the opening that all of the technology described was accurate. Also in the book it said that top level military gear isn't known to the public until 12 years later. Anyway, they described a little tiny camera that flies and also recharges itself next to electronics or in the light (I can't remember), but also something about inducing hear attacks by going into the blood stream. Lots of ways to view and kill without detection. The little camera reminded me of the one described by Michael Crichton in Prey, but there were many little cameras who together made up an eye. The main thing both books talked about was how technology was starting to imitate nature to produce effective technology, and I think these little cameras must exist somewhere. That would be an effective terrorist tool if you could both monitor them and induce heart attacks left and right...

Jester, are you serious? They showed it live? That's crazy!

If I'm not mistaken, I've seen footage that was taken of the SAS raid on the British Embassy in Iran (or was it the other way around or something different?) around 1990, which was actually what lead to what's been a craze of sorts about the SAS, and one of the why they're held in such high esteem as one of the best special forces units worldwide.

There was something like 6 terrorists, if that's what you want to call them and 26 hostages, and I think the SAS killed 4 or 5 of them and had everyone else out on the lawn ziptied for inspection in 6 or 8 minutes and only one hostage was killed after they entered the building. Pretty impressive stuff, nor really relevant to topic, but filming of special forces units in action was brought up.

Actually, I think it'd be an unanimous agreement if I say I wish Rainbow Six actually existed. :D
I'm not sure about all this, but I have heard of surveillance equipment using a wire that can also charge itself with sunlight. Bah; diverting...
Now actually, OBLH has quite a point. A lot about the way such events are covered also depends on, or may have caused, the level of awareness on the outside. The way I hear it, no offense, many Americans do not seem to want to care much about the world outside. Taiwan, Singapore, Nepal, Israel, Russia.....those that do tend to follow only what one-sided coverages they see on channels like CNN. It does explain alot.

And where's Tom Clancy now Mac? LOL ironic huh.

Val, I want to answer your question about what would happen if we actually ignored them. Completely. No co-vert operations or spec ops coming into it, simply not doing anything. In short, the outcome I feel would be extremely bad. They have a one track mind, and will use anything and anyone they can to achieve their objective. Not to be dramatic, though the streets would fill the blood of the innocent moreso if we did nothing.

Yeah, you're right UT.

Who's the SAS Jester? That thing you watched sounds interesting, wish I'd read more news before recently, then I might remember it. But sadly, I'm like most Americans, not really caring about things outside my box... but all that's done with now.

I just get pissed off when the limited amount of info coming to our prime news sources (that directly go to the people who care less about politics and maybe only watch the local news or read the news paper and don't really investigate the news because they don't have time) about the Russian hostage crisis is being used by the Bush administration as another reason to be a rootin' tootin' gun-crazy kill em all country who invades countries for wrong reasons. You can't go to war in a country where only a few select people are against us, when they are scattered through all middle eastern countries. Afghanistan was justified, but in Iraq we have just created more enemies, and yes, probably even brought the enemies to us. But these are mostly new enemies that are only enemies because we invaded their country and killed some of their families. My point is, I don't like how the Bush administration is using only PART of the story for their benefit by making us even more afraid, when this probably had nothing to do with the enemies we are fighting, and it hasn't been proven. Too bad Putin and Bush are not really the type to listen to one another, and that this has NOTHING to do with America in any way, Bush and specifically Cheney can still use it to make us even more neurotic and paranoid of every other human being than we already are. Okay, I'm done ranting now.

The SAS, or Special Air Service, especially the 22nd Regiment I believe, is the most elite special forces unit in the UK, and arguably in the world. Folks REALLY started getting interested in the SAS when it was one of the models you could choose as a CT in Counter-Strike as well as after the Embassy seige.

You've summarized the entire problem that had started exactly 3 years to this day; Vash. Sadly enough, politics is decidedly one-sided, even in the land of the free. In a world where the winners make history, it's pretty much impossible to cover only the truth, even as it happens right before your eyes.
...Btw, what about Tom Clancy? What irony? I didn't keep track on his life.

Off topic for a moment. Fox News keeps calling Osama bin Laden 'UBL', but his name is not Usama. I can't remember why, but I think it was Donald Rumsfeld who called him that first. If it wasn't him it was probably Karl Rove, I just can't remember. Either way, the name stuck, and I keep hearing reporters use it. His name was never Usama, it was always Osama. But then I was thinking... Osama bin Laden and Ou Be Low (hoo) have the same initials... almost. Was this on purpose?

That's odd, because they seem to have omitted the part where he said he would fight the terrorism. I did hear that he said he will not negotiate with child killers, but I never heard him say he would fight back. Also I'm hearing that Russians will be trying to pay millions to Chechens to... what's the word? Make them content to not attack Russia anymore.[/i]

I tried to find the speech but apparantely my research skills are not up to the task. So I can't back what I said up, but I can say that I read a few days ago that Putin was putting a price on the Chechen leaders' heads... I can also say that I've read and heard that Putin is famed for his fervent anti-Chechen policies, and I'm almost entirely convinced that he said he'll fight the terrorists. Another quote of his is his answer to a reporter's question about negotiations with the Chechens - something along the lines of "would you negotiate with Osama Bin Laden?" Also he said he won't negotiate with baby killers etc. etc.
Either our sources are lying to one of us or one of us in very confused. If anyone can clear to up I would be ecstatic with joy :)

Mac, I think we are disagreed on the basic function of terrorism. I claim that its purpose is to frighten civilians of a state into submission - into the
civilians pressuring the government to make whatever concessions.
You seemed to me to claim, in your first post, that their purpose is to get the attention of the world, and now you seem to claim that their just blindly into war, though I'm not sure. What exactly is it that you think the terrorists are out to do?
What you say about terrorists being targeted at all costs, and largely regardless of what innocents get killed is not such a far off idea... In Israel there is an ongoing argument whether or not it is morally right to kill terrorists even when they are surrounded by innocents, which the terrorists tend to do in order to protect themselves... I myeslf lean more towards your view - that in order for terrorism to truly be illegetimised it is necessary to go after them zealously even when sometimes it seems that in the short run striking at them will bring more harm than good. In the long run, it would weaken the terrorist infrastructure and mindset. If they can't hide behind innocents they won't waste their time hiding behind innocents, or the innocents would take action against them...

I'm trying to touch on every point here... :p About the high-tech counter-terrorism gadgets, we may or may not be advanced enough to have those, but there is no doubt that if a serious international anti-terrorism force would be built then it would become much easier to combat terrorism. The world should have started treating terrorism seriously a long while ago - certainly since 9/11, but it seems to me that it has been mostly talk, and that countries don't want to treat terrorism like a real war because they've gotten too comfortable with the illusion of peace that they've been living under for way too long. And every day they don't wake up the terrorists get stronger.

I don't think that it is only Americans that don't care about the world outside.
Generally, people have enough to worry about in their personal life to have real concern for something going on in another country between people they don't know. The world public has very little knowledge about the history and details of world conflicts and, even worse, an extremely short memory. The interest in international conflict are mostly emotional - it's about who you tend to side with, not who is in the right.
Maybe Americans are just more honest in caring most about what goes on back home. This seems to me a much better attitude than passionately arguing about situations you can't be bothered to make a commitement to properly understand.

Well, last I heard on the news, Putin is trying to suppress democracy in Russia by pushing for the elections not to be won by the popular vote anymore... Something about how this will help fight terrorism, but he's getting criticism for it. I think it would be a bad move to take the power away from the people of Russia in electing their own leaders.

I never said they're blindly venturing into war FYM: to me terrorists know their ends; they just have no qualms about choosing the means to them. That might have been where we got mixed up. You're right about their goal, but my point was that the larger and more shocking their means to them, the better. Hey, even tabloids, TV and news programs do that on a smaller scale. ;)