For CNN, and actually not only for CNN, the Russian Government and Chechen rebels are almost the same thing.
Already in several hours after the Baraev group captured the audience of the musical Nord-Ost, the main site of Chechen militants kavkaz.org became practically inaccessible. The reason why “the main information calibre” of the terrorists fell out so soon seems to be easy. Just after the start of the events, the universally known TV company CNN started to add two links to all its publications about the Moscow tragedy – bringing to Russian Information Centre (official Internet resource of the Russian Government) and to the site kavkaz.org.
It is very curious, how they characterize the links: Russian Government: Official Information and Pro-rebel Website: kavkaz.org.
Now, about the word “rebel.” It sounds too mildly and too respectfully. It is a traditional characteristic of revolutionary parties. Irish separatists are rebels, soldiers of General Washington in time when American colonies battled for their independence from Great Britain are rebels, too. But, brothers-in-arms of bin Laden are terrorists. Do you feel the difference?
If you do not trust me, you can check it up. It would be enough just to look through CNN articles about bin Laden to make sure of it.
Chechen gunmen are still rebels for CNN. For example the article Theatre gunmen fire at escapers. The author never calls the Chechens with this politically incorrect word “terrorist,” however there are “anti-Terrorist forces” in the article. While the question is about the murder of the hostage.
So, how do the US journalists call the Baraev killers? Very blandly: “Chechen gunmen,” “Chechen guerrillas,” “Chechen rebels,” and finally “Chechen dissidents.” Though these Chechens are never called “killers” or “terrorists.”
The most troublesome thing is, that CNN is not alone in its sympathy with Caucasian bandits: Associated Press - Chechen rebels, Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Chechen rebels and Chechen guerrillas.
Let us think, why? You know, the hostage-taking in Moscow and the terrorist acts of September 11 in New-York and Washington are links of one chain. Vladimir Putin said directly: “the terrorist act in Moscow was planned outside of Russia.”
But if it is so and Americans admit it, why then well-known TV and radio channels venture on things like that. For, the question is not about the Russian President who the first presented his condolences to the US after the September 11 tragedy. The question is that here the double standard system works: there are good rebels and bad terrorists.
But namely today, US representative to the Asian and Pacific Countries summit, Lawrence Greenwood said that the US considers the hostage-taking in Moscow as “a form of terrorism.” He said the US government agrees that the attack on the theatre in Moscow could be characterized as a “terrorist act.” “Yes, we can see here, that this is a form of terrorism,” – Greenwood said. Following the US leadership logic, the terrorists are under US TV and radio channels patronage. Is it a rebellion?
Translated by Vera Solovieva
Putin's official spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented on remarks in the US media about failures in launching nuclear-capable missiles in Russia
More than 5.8 million people voted for Nicholas Maduro at the presidential election in Venezuela. This is more than a quarter of registered voters. Why did those people vote for the man, who, as Western media write, took Venezuela to the brink of collapse?
It has long been understood that the West has been trying to subject Russian borders to total control. We have not seen such activity even during the Cold War