Russian School Massacre

[floydian slip]

Good idea Toy Boy

Now President Putin's statement, which is in the press, and which you can get copies of otherwise, is appropriate and ominous, in its characterization, that:

Russia has recognized it is under attack by terrorist methods, from sources outside Russia, which have a strategic interest in reducing Russia to impotence from its current status as a power. As some of this is reflected, in some of the European press, is, the argument is: Russia must pull its forces out of the Caucasus. That's the object.

We know there are people in the United States, including people who lap into the Democratic Party itself, through certain channels, who are behind this operation. This is an attack, a geopolitical attack, on a nuclear power, Russia; and, Putin, in plain language, without going further than need be said, is saying exactly that.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/20...statement.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...ghlight=russia





-------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...ap1532994.html

Associated Press
Yukos Woes Increase With Collection Order
09.07.2004, 04:59 PM

Russia's Tax Ministry has slapped Yukos with a collection order on part of a back tax claim, raising the total due to $6.1 billion, the embattled company said Tuesday.

-----------------------------------------------

more interestingness


http://oag.ru/views/ivashov_who.html

Who's Noticing the NATO danger?

So what's going on with Russia-NATO relations? To answer this question, let's try to get to the bottom of NATO's essence, its position and role in today's world.

A.I. Neklessa, Doctor of Economic Sciences, member of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, affirms that today we're seeing the emergence of a new world civilization. And he's not alone in his assertion.

I've also spoken many times of the emergence of a new geopolitical subject of supra-national character onto the world arena. This is the world financial elite and transnational corporations, consolidated in the name of world dominion, control over all countries and all coalitions of countries.

This new geopolitical phenomenon is interesting in that it unites the richest people on the planet and a developed network of financial institutions -- more than 500 of the mightiest TNCs, possessing capital in excess of 16 trillion dollars and accounting for more than 25% of the world's industrial production.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


more with the NATO thing

The attackers - described by the authorities as including Chechens, Ingush, ethnic Russians and some still-unidentified foreigners - seemed to follow a plan after they seized the school with precision and alacrity, forcing their hostages to help place explosives and build barricades that limited the options of Russian forces outside.

The attackers wore NATO-issued camouflage. They carried gas masks, compasses and first-aid kits. They communicated with hand-held radios, and brought along two sentry dogs, as expertly trained as the attackers themselves, the officials said. All suggested detailed planning, including surveillance and possibly rehearsals, the officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/in...pe/06plot.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


make sure you have pop up blocker for this site

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=55172

CHECHENS HELPED BY BRITAIN & UNITED STATES

Chechen Aslan Maskhadov & Akhmed Zakayv Helped By Britain & United States

NewsNight Hosted by Aaron Brown on CNN
NewsNight 09/07/04, spokesperson Richard Boucher from the U.S.
State Department admitted that the U.S. Government has been in
contact with Chechen terrorists. When the State Department
Boucher of the Bush Administration was saying this, he bowed his
head (probably in shame).



(pic below) A police officer stands in front of a slogan with a portrait
of Akhmed Zakayev and reading 'Want to help? Extradite
Zakayev!' during a mass rally against terrorism at the Kremlin
in Moscow, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004. Akhmed Zakayev, an envoy
for former separatist Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov, has
been granted asylum in Britain and the Foreign Ministry said
Russia will take new steps seeking the extradition of people
it says are linked with terrorism. Tens of thousands of
Russians massed outside the Kremlin for a rally against
terrorism Tuesday.

[daddydirt]

Putin knew.
Bush knew before Putin.
Cheney was first to know. (he planned it)
Kerry knew before he didn't know. (subject to change)

[legion]

words kinda fail me when young kids, who have no part in the ordeal in the chechen republic, are being held hostage. terrorist taking potshots at them while they are trying to flee from the scene. I heard ( i can't verify it ) that one of them was shot in the back 46 times


I wonder what drives people to such an act without a doubt on my mind they had to be exposed to serious violence themselves. Still FFS the are/were kids.

I am not a supporter for the death penalty but boy this comes bloody close

Antoher sad day for humanity entire

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by toy boy

I wonder what drives people to such an act

a decade's worth of russians blowing apart their kids is probably one cause.

- js.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by toy boy

who have no part in the ordeal in the chechen republic.

True enough, but sadly, the word terrorisim or just terror justify all these things. I feel for those family who lost a young loved one but hey, the same thing happened in the vietnam war, even tho it was never justified.

Originally Posted by toy boy

Still FFS the are/were kids.

Yes they were, so are the kids in Darfour who are daily getting murdered for the color of their skin.

ever think of those poor saps in the third world, they die everyday and need no terrorist of to do so, they only need big power corp to do the job

[legion]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

True enough, but sadly, the word terrorisim or just terror justify all these things. I feel for those family who lost a young loved one but hey, the same thing happened in the vietnam war, even tho it was never justified.



Yes they were, so are the kids in Darfour who are daily getting murdered for the color of their skin.

ever think of those poor saps in the third world, they die everyday and need no terrorist of to do so, they only need big power corp to do the job

miss silver, wouldn't you agree with me that it is hard to justify any war? The war in vietnam was in a different time, when the cold war was at a peak (hardly justifiable i know) but the world political situation was a different one than the one we are having right now.

yes i have thought about those poor saps in the third world and i was under the impression that those kids in dafour are not only killed for the colour of their skin but that the religious militia responsible for those attacks are backed by the army of the current regime. To invade the country in question would be nothing more than another vietnam, yugoslavia or iraq for it is still an internal/civil '''''war''''' within a souvereign state


I agree jack, however i don't think you would say the same thing when a group of iraqis would hijack a U.S. high school, blowing more than 100 American kids to smithereens because they had to suffer MORE than 10 years of sanctions against their fellow country men while being bombed from time to time throughout those years.
i think if we take a hard and long look at the situation during those years i think we come to see a death toll higher than the amount of victims that have fallen in this war so far. In our name by the way coz those sanctions were implemented (<-- did i spell that right?) by the united nations

[malvachat]

Alexs is at it again.

http://infowars.com/print/world/russian_seige.htm

[daddydirt]

imho you'll find many truths in the book Why Terrorism Works by Alan Dershowitz.

Book Description

The greatest danger facing the world today, says Alan M. Dershowitz, comes from religiously inspired, state sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop weapons of mass destruction for use against civilian targets. In his newest book, Dershowitz argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we must and can take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Analyzing recent acts of terrorism and our reaction to them, Dershowitz explains that terrorism is successful when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists—or even tries to understand and eliminate the "root causes" of terrorism. He discusses extreme approaches to wiping out international terrorism that would work if we were not constrained by legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations. And then, given that we do operate under such constraints, he offers a series of proposals that would effectively reduce the frequency and severity of international terrorism by striking a balance between security and liberty.

[albed]

You can probably get the same info by searching "fourth generation warfare".

It's been discussed for some years now and it's suprising the U.S. isn't applying the methods required more often, mostly intense propaganda warfare.

They're doing better at accepting civilian deaths to get at the enemy though, and you don't hear as much squealing that "were becoming terrorists ourselves".

Anyone who thinks a bleeding heart liberal can win this kind of war is an enemy asset.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by daddydirt

imho you'll find many truths in the book Why Terrorism Works by Alan Dershowitz.

Book Description

The greatest danger facing the world today, says Alan M. Dershowitz, comes from religiously inspired, state sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop weapons of mass destruction for use against civilian targets. In his newest book, Dershowitz argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we must and can take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Analyzing recent acts of terrorism and our reaction to them, Dershowitz explains that terrorism is successful when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists—or even tries to understand and eliminate the "root causes" of terrorism. He discusses extreme approaches to wiping out international terrorism that would work if we were not constrained by legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations. And then, given that we do operate under such constraints, he offers a series of proposals that would effectively reduce the frequency and severity of international terrorism by striking a balance between security and liberty.

DD Just did a research on the peep you mentionned above.

forgot to mentionned a few things

The UN has fed a monster that now threatens it and everyone else

By Alan Dershowitz

For more than a quarter of a century, the U.N. has actively encouraged terrorism by rewarding its primary practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters."


http://www.jewishworldreview.com | Several days ago I received a phone call from a Brazilian journalist who asked me to respond to the charge being made in her home country that Israel was at least indirectly to blame for the deadly truck bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that killed, among others, a prominent Brazilian diplomat, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

I was not surprised at the question, considering its source. Among many South Americans, as among many Eastern Europeans, the knee-jerk response to nearly every evil is "blame it on the Jews." For example, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Meridiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, has blamed the "Jewish media" for the scandal involving Catholic priests having sex with young parishioners.

But the question got me to thinking: Who does share the blame with the terrorists themselves for the horrific explosion that killed and injured so many innocent people? Although the primary culprit is clearly the terrorist group that planned and executed the mass murder, the secondary culprit is the U.N. itself.

For more than a quarter of a century, the U.N. has actively encouraged terrorism by rewarding its primary practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters." No organization in the world today has accorded so much legitimacy to terrorism as has the U.N.


Consider the following:

* There are numerous occupied peoples around the world seeking statehood or national liberation, including the Tibetans, Kurds, Turkish Armenians and Palestinians. Only one of these groups has received official recognition by the U.N., including observer status and invitations to speak and participate in committee work. That group is the one that invented and perfected modern international terrorism — namely, the Palestinians.

These rewards were first bestowed in the 1970s when the Palestine Liberation Organization was unabashedly committed to terrorism. In fact, Chairman Yasser Arafat was invited to speak to the U.N. General Assembly in 1974 at a time when his organization was seeking to destroy a member-state of the U.N. by terrorism.

By rewarding Arafat and the PLO for such behavior, the U.N. made it clear that the best way to ensure that your cause is leapfrogged ahead of others is to adopt terrorism as your primary means of protest. The Tibetans, whose land has been occupied more brutally and for a longer period than the Palestinians, but who have never practiced terrorism, cannot even receive a hearing from the U.N.

* The U.N. has for years refused to condemn terrorism unequivocally, while encouraging and upholding "the legitimacy of the struggle for national liberation movements" against "occupation" — in other words, the use of terrorism against innocent civilians to resist occupation. This has sent the message to aggrieved groups that terrorism is legitimate.

* The U.N. has allowed Palestinian terrorists to use U.N.-sponsored "refugee camps" like Jenin as terrorist bases. This has sent the message to the world that the U.N. closes its eyes to terrorism.

* The U.N. has repeatedly condemned efforts by Israel to prevent and respond to terrorism. For example, the Security Council condemned Israel for isolating Arafat in the West Bank last year, even after it was proved that Arafat remained complicit in acts of terrorism.

This has sent the message to the victims of terrorism that if they fight back they risk sanctions.

* The U.N. has allowed states such as Syria that sponsor terrorism to sit on the Security Council and to chair important committees, while denying Israel these same rights. This has sent the message that the U.N. applies a double standard when it comes to terrorism.

The bottom line is that the U.N. has served as an international megaphone for the perverse message that any people who feel that they are occupied have the right to resist occupation by randomly murdering innocent civilians anywhere in the world.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Some Iraqis, who feel that they are now occupied, have taken the U.N.'s message to heart and are engaged in a "national liberation movement" of the kind long praised by the U.N. and are using the tactics rewarded by the U.N. against that very organization.

Now that the victims of "national liberation terrorism" are U.N. employees instead of Jewish babies, maybe the U.N. will finally come to its senses and understand that by legitimating and rewarding terrorism, they have created a Frankenstein monster that can be turned against any nation, organization or group. Unless there is a change, no one will be safe from this U.N.-created, -fed and -rewarded monster that threatens the entire world.

from


Hey, wasn't it this peep who defended O.J. Simpson? Wouldn't touch his stuff with a 20 feet pole, more about this sadistic puppy below...

Alan Dershowitz's Mad World

by Will Youmans

Alan Dershowitz is the kind of guy who never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Harvard Law School professor and part-time voracious defender of Israel devoted his celebrity legal mind to combating terrorism. His partisan and fundamental support for Israel, however, discredits his own views on terrorism.

He outraged supporters of civil liberties and due process after September 11, 2001 for suggesting that torture should be legally sanctioned and warranted by the courts--an argument he forwards in his new book 'Why Terrorism Works'. His shining model for a legalized system of torture is Israel, of course. In a talk he gave to the World Affairs Council on September 3rd, 2002, he described Israel's procedure as invoked judiciously and non-lethal in technique. He was unconcerned with who was being tortured and for what. What mattered to him was strictly technical in nature, like a good lawyer.

In a 1999 essay in 'The Nation,' Alexander Cockburn quoted a 15 year-old torture victim's description of his experience after being arrested for throwing stones:

"They handcuffed and beat me during the journey to Fara'a [a military prison in Nablus]. Once we arrived, they took me to a 'doctor' for a 'checkup.' I found out later that this 'checkup' is to locate any physical weakness to concentrate on during torture. They paid particular attention to my leg, which was once injured and was still sensitive. Before they began interrogation, they asked me if I was ready to confess. They then hanged me by my wrists, naked, outside in the cold, and gave me hot and cold showers alternatively. A hood covered in manure was put over my head."

A September 1999 Supreme Court ruling scaled back Israel's routine use of torture according to B'tselem, and Israeli human rights group. However, there are still numerous reports of use by Israeli occupation police. Many of the victims are minors.

It is a truism that armies occupying populaces against their will rely on systematic violence to keep them in their place. Every historical example of military occupation involves many of the same practices, which by any useful definition constitutes terrorism. Yet, according to Dershowitz, we are supposed to believe that Israel's use is enlightened enough to learn from? How can Israel be a shining light given its systematic military domination of an entire people? Is this something all states should aspire too?

The fundamental failure of Dershowitz is that he advocates fighting terrorism with terrorism. A Newtonian principle applies to the physics of violence: every act of violence by one party will be answered with an opposite and equal one. He dismisses the notion that state counter-terrorism practices are a form of terrorism since they are aimed at fighting it. So when Israel kills eleven innocent bystanders in an effort to kill one Hamas official, it is not terrorism. Neither are the checkpoints, closures, curfews, arbitrary arrests, and gun shots at children or media. In a talk he gave, he praised the behavior of Israeli military in Jenin, and completely ignored what it calls "neighbor practice"--using Palestinian civilians as human shields on their searches of houses.

The cover of his book features pictures of Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat--the two main faces of terrorism in the Dershowitzian world. Noticeably absent from the cover are the most prominent and successful terrorists, those who really made it work by using the cover of legitimacy or by achieving governmental stature, which obfuscates their use of terror. So, there is no picture of Menachem Begin, the former Israeli Prime Minister who was once wanted by the British mandate authorities for terrorism, or Henry Kissinger, or the Shah of Iran, or the countless other "world leaders" whose terrorism worked so well that their extermination of so many opponents was met with neglect, complicity, or even assistance. No wonder a 'Washington Post' reviewer called his book "convoluted."

Dershowitz handles the question of state versus non-state terrorism by ignoring the former. This important divide is coming to a head in Israel's legally bizarre trial of Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, who incidentally was tortured numerous times according to <www.freebarghouti.org>. He is being tried in a regular Israel court for terrorism and murder. Since he committed none of the alleged acts directly, the prosecution must rest on a theory of command responsibility, that means under his authority and with his approval others carried out acts of violence.

If he is found guilty, it will set a clear precedence for the prosecution of Ariel Sharon, who as an Israeli leader authorized attacks that have killed citizens. I am not saying a prosecution team would go after Sharon, but the contradiction would be too glaring to ignore.

That Israeli courts will struggle to handle this legally formalistic hindrance is emblematic of how Israeli law deals with the Palestinian "other." The Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza occupy a strange legal space. They do not have the rights of citizens, nor do they have the rights of occupied persons under international law, yet they are subject to Israeli rule and pay taxes to Israel. To make the distinction clear, within the Palestinian populations are Jewish colonists who are granted full rights of citizenship and are thus treated entirely different by Israel. This is clearly an Apartheid structure.

Critics are charging that this whole affair is political in nature, not purely legal. Nelson Mandela drew an interesting parallel: "What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me. The government tried to de-legitimize the African National Congress and its armed struggle by putting me on trial."

Palestinians escape conventional legal classification and are thus subject to legal contortion acts, mysterious procedural innovations and new legal fictions--in many ways a mirror to the evolution of American Indian law.

As a law professor, this should dumbfound Dershowitz, but he no qualms about running with it. He is already beginning to advocate a trial of Yasser Arafat in Israeli courts, as his preferable choice among other options he deems legitimate, such as the "exile of Arafatand even targeted assassination" (Haaretz 9/2/02).

In March 2002, Dershowitz penned a piece for the 'Jerusalem Post' that argued for the collective punishment of Palestinian villages for acts of violence sponsored by Palestinian individuals or groups. He proposed that any act of violence sponsored by an individual Palestinian would result in Israel's destruction of an entire pre-announced Palestinian village.

He also publicly stated that Nathan Lewin's proposal that Israel execute the family members of suicide bombers was "legitimate." Israeli currently began a policy of expelling family members of suicide bombers from their villages. Before, they merely demolished their homes.

These proposals define Dershowitz's inability to put Palestinian rights of security on equal footing with Israel's. Since he sees everything through a lens that prioritizes Israel's security above all else, he cannot see the fundamental disparity between populations within the legal system he praises. Israel's Basic Law, its pseudo-constitution (because Israel lacks one) is characterized by legal devices for securing the Jewish nature of the state by the appropriation of "Absentee" property, the homes of Palestinian refugees Israel disallowed from returning.

The international community tried to address the effects of the fiasco it created with the partition plan. For instance, Israel's membership into the United Nations was conditioned on a just settlement of the refugee issue, which until this day has no occurred. Numerous UN resolutions affirm the rights of the refugees. His explanation for this: global anti-Semitism.

Dershowitz dismisses international law and bodies entirely. In the talk to the World Affairs Council, he accused the United Nations Refugee Works Agency (UNRWA), the main humanitarian services provider in refugee camps, of "complicity" in terrorism for not cracking down on terrorists. He did not expound of course. In his recent book, he even casts doubt on the humanitarian plight of the Palestinians. In response to reports of Palestinian "desperation" in the refugee camps, he wrote "there are reasons to be skeptical of this claim."

more here

hummm

[daddydirt]

miss silver, when i recommended this book to malvachat, i did so with the hope that he will take the time and effort to actually read the book, learn something new perhaps, and when finished, decide for himself whether or not he agrees or disagrees with some or all of the premises set forth in the book.

i don't know about you, but before reading any serious book i try to keep an open mind, putting aside any predjudices i may have formed beforehand about the author or the opinions of someone reviewing and critiquing it.

if going to a web site and reading what someone else thinks is good enough for you, then i believe 'you can do better'. (paraphrasing my current favorite politician)

as for alan dershowitz, if all you know about him is that he defended o.j. simpson, perhaps you could go here , where you might be surprised to find you have a lot more in common with him than you think.

btw, i believe a criminal defense attorney is obligated to do his best to get the defendant acquitted, what he personally believes about his client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

[Sinner]

Just wanted to post a link here.....


This is a non-commercial Web site that provides a list of terrorist attacks committed by determined Muslims since 9/11/01, the day that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings killing thousands of innocent people. We do not believe in stereotyping individuals of any religion, particularly one as diverse as Islam, but the next time you hear someone refer to this ideology as "The Religion of Peace", direct them to this site and explain that every person on this list lost their life or was maimed by individuals vocally inspired by this religion.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm

[miss_silver]

DD

I stay by my word, wouldn't touch the book with a 20 foot pole. Not because of my convictions but because of what the book represent, deal with the terrorists more violently than we do right now. The point is, how can one understand terrorisim or even understand it's roots if one cannot see what is behind it or causing it, it's all cause and effects.

The first article i posted is by Alan Dershowitz, a bit of his book was about. I always try to keep an open mind but also not to be swindle by such talks about how to deal with those terrorists. Saw a doco tonight called "Death in Gaza", and i've never seen the palestinian side this closely before, it was done through 3 kids eyes, about what they thought and felt and their entourage, how they influenced them. They are about 10 to 12 years old and they already know how to make hand grenades and know how to make them blow to sharpnels, that was some heavy shit. They are already, ready do die for their country, by blowing themselves up as last recourse to strike back. If you ever see it on HBO, it's one of their production, it's really worth the watch to even begin to understand terrorisim.

In that doco, we follow the lives of 3 distinct boy who have the same thing in common, a deep rooted hatred toward the jewish state. So imo, it doesn't help that those kids harbour such a deep loathing and hatred toward them since they are young + the propaganda written on walls on how to be a martyr will send you directly to heaven with the blessings of celestials virgins promissed by jhiad activists... each of them have lost close family and relatives to armed jewish settlers which help to fuel their hatrid even more. They just bloody hate them and even at the age of five, some palestinian kids wish they'd blow up their first... Just to say, it really got me scared and heartbroken to see this type of fanatic fervor in such youg eyes. So where to even begin not to understand why there is terrorisim.

I also found that one cannot classify terrorisim in a whole, one type of terrorisim is for demands, like we've recently seen with those 2 french journalists, they wanted too make a polititcal statement about girls not being able to wear the veil at school. The second type is just plain and total disreguard for life, like we've seen in russia. What i've also notice about the second type is that, it's mostly done to have independence. It's a damn wrong way to achive it, violence always generate more violence. Dealing with the terrorists more violently will only generate more terrorists. In the doco, we also see armed masked palestinians militant which one of the boy already work for and aspire to become like them. One of the militant said that if they were to send him with a bomb to blow up himself in the jewish state, there would be another 1000 boys ready to replace him.

Also discovered an interesting fact, which I didn't know of

Eight Journalists Killed and 304 Wounded During Al-Aqsa Intifada

"As the Intifada enters its fourth year, the number of journalists killed by the occupation forces reached eight, the last of which was James Miller, a British cameraman working for HBO .."


OCCUPIED JERUSALEM - Since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada on September 28, 2000, journalists have played a vital role on the international, regional and local levels, through documenting and uncovering the Israeli crimes- against the Palestinian people- to the whole world. Palestinian journalists have proved, through their professionalism and rare bravery, that they're capable of going above and beyond the call of duty, the thing that irritated the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) and made them target those journalists.

In light of the competition of the IT the world's going through, it was impossible for the Israeli government to stop the flow of information and news through the different channels of media, which gave it no choice but to target the journalists themselves.

Targeting Journalists


As the Intifada enters its fourth year, the number of journalists killed by the occupation forces reached eight, the last of which was James Miller, a British cameraman working for Home Box Office (HBO), who was murdered by the occupation forces on May 3, 2003 in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip, of while covering the destruction Palestinian houses there by Israeli bulldozers.

Another cameraman, Nazih Darwazeh, working for Palestine TV, faced the same fate as Miller, as he was shot dead by an Israeli soldier in the West Bank city of Nablus on April 19, 2003 despite being in close proximity to the soldier which allowed Darwazeh to inform the soldier of his journalist identity minutes before he was murdered.

In a recent statistic prepared by the International Press Center (IPC) of the State Information Service (SIS), 304 (Palestinians, Arab and Foreign) journalists were wounded by the IOF and armed Jewish settlers, including 167 journalists wounded by gunshots and shrapnel. 137 others were wounded by physical assault (beating), gas canisters and other types of assaults.

It is obvious that the occupation forces intentionally target the working with the most influential international news agencies.

In the first year of the Intifada, the ratio of wounded journalists working for foreign agencies was 46.6%. Those journalists who worked for the largest news agencies in the world, (AFP, Reuters and AP) represented 29.3% of the total wounded journalists.

In the second year of the Intifada, the ratio of wounded journalists who worked with non-Arabic news agencies reached 46.05%. As for the third year, this ratio rose up to 47.11%.

On March 6, 2003 during the Israeli invasion of Jabalia refugee camp, north of Gaza Strip, an Israeli tank fired a shell on journalists and firefighters, wounding two journalists of Reuters, Ahmad Jadallah, (photographer) who was severely wounded in the two legs and Shamseddin Odeh (cameraman) in his left foot.

On April 9, 2002 in Nablus City, Gilles Jacquie, France2 cameraman, was critically wounded after being shot in the chest by Israeli soldiers.

more

So why shoot at them, to me, it looks like a bunch of armed terrorists.

Also read the web page you referred me to, to keep an open mind. It didn't help much. from the page

In 1983, the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith presented him with the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award for his "compassionate eloquent leadership and persistent advocacy in the struggle for civil and human rights." In presenting the award, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel said: "If there had been a few people like Alan Dershowitz during the 1930s and 1940s, the history of European Jewry might have been different." He has been awarded the honorary doctor of laws degree by Yeshiva University, the Hebrew Union College, Monmouth College, and Haifa University. The New York Criminal Bar Association honored Professor Dershowitz for his "outstanding contribution as a scholar and dedicated defender of human rights."

Just reading that churned my stomach. The B'nai B'rith giving him an award was enough for me... Over here, this organisation are very powerfull lobbyist and ofter pressure our prime such as, no way, not al-jazeera in canada! No No NO, it's not good!!! They also pulled quite a stunt during the Just for Laugh festival wanting to forbid, an arab comic, to take the stage because they were affirming that he had only anti-diffamation and anti-semite content in his show. Well, it turned out, that comic was making fun at all the religions, even his own They took this one way over the top.

BTW, even didn't remember his name or that he defended O.J. but finding that out today, it doesn't surprise me.

[multi]

Originally Posted by toy boy

words kinda fail me when young kids, who have no part in the ordeal in the chechen republic, are being held hostage. terrorist taking potshots at them while they are trying to flee from the scene. I heard ( i can't verify it ) that one of them was shot in the back 46 times


I wonder what drives people to such an act without a doubt on my mind they had to be exposed to serious violence themselves. Still FFS the are/were kids.

I am not a supporter for the death penalty but boy this comes bloody close

Antoher sad day for humanity entire

problem with giving these sort of fanatics (bali bobmbers ..ect) death peanalty is you give them the matyr status they want
that could influence 100's of young followers to imitate
locking them up for the rest of their lives and subjecting them to the occasional torture(getting escorted to a starbucks for coffee ..ect j/k)
would probably have the same effect in the long run..

i agree that when you see people maliciously kill kids like that,the first thing you think is..
death is the best thing for them...
its safe to say that soft targets killed for political reasons and ones killed by your average nutcase screwed up by western society are equaly deserving of some sort of justice..but no justice ever adresses the root causes of the extreme actions of these a55holes..it only ever serves to pluck them out of the system ....
its very similar to how we deal with disease

[malvachat]

A bit of a serious debate.
Oh goody goody.
I myself don't know what to believe anymore.
As reading for up on a subject,yes I'll read anything.
It won't matter to me what a person has done I'll
still listen to what he/she has to say.
Unfortunately in the real world.
If a guy/gal is a Pratt,
I can't give much credence to what they say.
I do know one thing.
Giving in to terrorism in any way doesn't work.
Just like blackmail.
Or as I like to think the school bully.
I was always taught never give in to bully's.
(Take note America)
My politics are confusing.
I like to think of myself as a bit of a socialist.
Trade union man all my life.
But as far as anti social behaviour goes,
and things like terrorism.
(Anybody who knows me understands my next statement)

KILL THE BASTARDS.

[Heathcliff]

Well I ain't shit at debates but I do know a few things:

If Regan hadn't funded the Afghan rebels just to spite the hell out of our supposed enemies the Soviets we wouldn't have had the Taliban.

That was the first mistake.

And if that dumbassed weepy Christian Carter had've acted like he had some balls it would have ended with him. But NO! He had to play the great warrior for Jesus and stir the pot some more.

We need more good God-fearing Christians to lead us back to the Dark Ages.

That was the second mistake.

Then along comes the mindless figurehead Regan with the diabolical Bush family behind him pulling the strings, who are all congenitally sociopathic criminals who'll jump into bed with anybody for a buck. This world-class disgrace cook up a plan to steal by proxy the oil of Iraq by slant drilling Iraq's oil fields by their lackeys in Kuwait.

That was the third mistake.

And just to show their total disregard for humanity they con bought-and-paided-for lackey Hussein into giving them a pretext to attack him, to steal his oil too of course. Now Shrub has a real job so daddy won't have to fly his coke in special and take up space on the planes that could be better used for WMD's for our new lackeys in central and south America to murder anybody with even a whiff of leftism in their heart.

That was mistakes 4, 5, and six.

And still the "Chosen people" slumber.

And now we have another self-proclaimed True Believer Child of God, washed in the blood and gore of Jesus, trying to con the same Afghans with a massive pipeline deal which, low and behold, was basically an outright theft of Caspian natural gas.

Was it hard to get the stinch out of the ol' ranch after your boyz left Shrub?

Hey, just pay off a few more right-wing dictators, what difference does it make? Hell they'll sell out their own people and the World Bank will handle all the zeros. We might even make good christians out of them. Amen! Let Capitalism rule!

And as if to add irony upon irony your basic pickup truck worshipping shit faced American scratches his head and wonders why a billion people steeped in the philosophy of blood feud and revenge is after his ass.

This country needs an enema. Unfortunately it's hooked on political junk food so it'll just fill up with shit till it explodes.

What has all this got to do with the Russian's? As usual, they're just victims of our psychopathic greed and brinksmanship.

It could come any day.

[multi]

to me the russian terror attacks are a symptom of their confilct
like israel like the US in iraq
its people fighting back with the only means left to them..
(not condoning these disgusting acts wich is a waste of human life..but just trying look at the root causes)
yet another case of poor misplaced people fighting well funded and equiped
armies...

what the war on terror really tries to do is tie all these different conflicts together..and make a nice sellable package and to lock in certain international policies

3years into it ..and nothing but attempts to escalate it and deceptivly combine 3(or more) different conflicts into one wich effects everyone in the west

killing kids and innocent civilians is wrong
i dont want to make light of that..
but there is an alarming pattern to all this..
not to mention oil and pipeline routes almost figures into all of this..

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by toy boy

I agree jack, however i don't think you would say the same thing when a group of iraqis...

why wouldn't i?

- js.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by multi

to me the russian terror attacks are a symptom of their confilct
like israel like the US in iraq
its people fighting back with the only means left to them..
(not condoning these disgusting acts wich is a waste of human life..but just trying look at the root causes)
yet another case of poor misplaced people fighting well funded and equiped
armies...

what the war on terror really tries to do is tie all these different conflicts together..and make a nice sellable package and to lock in certain international policies

3years into it ..and nothing but attempts to escalate it and deceptivly combine 3(or more) different conflicts into one wich effects everyone in the west

killing kids and innocent civilians is wrong
i dont want to make light of that..
but there is an alarming pattern to all this..
not to mention oil and pipeline routes almost figures into all of this..

so what happens when Putin invokes the Bush Doctrine, justifying a Russian attack on any country that makes him uncomfortable?

[legion]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

why wouldn't i?

- js.

I know you don't represent all Americans .... but for some reason you ( the american people) seem to think your dead are more important or at least that is how we see it. hence the several threads about Comlubine and just one (so far) about Beslan

second and please allow me to state the obvious, i think it is easeir to relate to your fellow country men than to some poor slob thousands of miles away