SKY NEWS reported at 16:30 GMT that 118 hostages were killed in Moscow (only 1 from gunshot wounds) and another 650 are in hospitals suffering gas poisoning of whom 45 are critically ill.

But they won't say what gas they used. SKY speculates it was a nerve gas.

Louis

Good question, I will have to say the truth. Theirs much more to the storie then what they are saying. Why don't they let foreign diplomats enter the hospital? The least they can do is to tell them if they any foreigners were among the dead or not

>SKY NEWS reported at 16:30 GMT that 118 hostages were
>killed in Moscow (only 1 from gunshot wounds) and another
>650 are in hospitals suffering gas poisoning of whom 45 are
>critically ill.
>
>But they won't say what gas they used. SKY speculates it was
>a nerve gas.

I hope none of you are ever in a position that needs decisions like the situation in Moscow. Give them a little time to sort things out. The "New" Russia deals with the press a bit better then the USSR did. As I said in an earlier string on the DC sniper, I'm not much of a fan of idle speculation or trial by the press. Be patient, let the 'responsible' press, (is there any anymore?) and the government spokespeople sort things out.
Don't forget that the terrorist had begun to murder people and were they were loaded with explosives.

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

Two points that bother me:

1. Presumably the gas effects were swift - the threat to blow up the building if stormed was, in my opinion, very sincere and believed by the Russian Government. They were in no doubt of the seriousness of the Chechens threat. So this was presumably avoided due to the gassing, allowing the troops to go in without the whole building going up. Reports range from 15 minutes to an hour for the storming , and considering Rebels were filmed strapped with explosives with detonators in their hands, I find it strange that these explosives were not triggered in that time.

2. This fact coupled with the absence of Russian Special Forces casualties kind of infers to me that the gas did it's job and that they basically walked through the building 'clearing up' with 5 of the approximately 60 rebels being apprehended.

Understandable maybe but still deeply disturbing.

It will be interesting to hear more accounts from the hostages - especially the non-russians - as to what actually happened in there.
The Russians stopped representatives of the British and American Governments from seeing their citizens who were involved and will probably stall the flow of information for as long as possible.

I think it's more down to tradition though than a attempt to cover up any criminal responsibility

If even one of the terrorists had been able to detonate their explosives inside the theater, hundreds or even all could have been killed. The terrorists had also decided to start the methodical murder of the hostages.

I know that monday morning quarterbacking is a national pastime, especially among those who don't actually know anything, but it seems to me the Russians took a calculated risk to save as many hostages as possible.

Current speculation is that the gas was a medical anesthesia that first causes disorientation and then unconsciousness. Perhaps it would have been more of a familiar western tactic to go in with guns blazing and grenades exploding, but the casualties would have probably been at least as great.

Several western governments, including our own have been considering exactly the same methods to be used in hostage situations. Who could argue that a similar strategy would have been preferable in Waco, where everyone wound up burned to death.

Shelly

I respectfully disagree with u guys. No they didn't really start killing hostages. What happened is one boy started running for the door and they open fire and missed him. Yes I know they try to execute him, but still they didn't actually on their own started to killing. Now let get to the gas part. I may agree with u that they couldn’t anticipate the gas affect, but why not tell doctors what gas it was so they could better treat patients. Also why not tell a family member who was killed and who's not and what hospital they are located and their condition. Why not tell foreign diplomats if their citizens are alive and what their condition is if they are alive.

According to CNN they had executed two hostages before the rescue started. You really don't know what the army told or didn't tell the doctors about the gas unless you work in that hospital. We may never know.

Shelly

It’s true that I don't know what the doctors were told or were not told, but according to cnn and Russian news website the doctors were not told what kind of gas they used. As far as hostages, we will probably will never know what happened in their.

Operational Security means that if you intend for this technique to be usable again, you don't talk about the details. Seems the Russians are willing to consider those who die from the gas as acceptable casualties to retain this option. I agree.

As for the rest of the armchair quarterbacks here, I highly doubt that either Delta or the SAS could have run an operation of this size with this situation and had the result be anywhere close to as successful as the Russians were.

And the inference of the Terrorists being killed in cold blood? Yep, I expect that is correct. It is the Standard Operating Procedure of every counter-terrorist unit in the world that a terrorist does not survive if he/she poses any threat to the hostages. People wired with explosives qualify as a threat. The SAS are the people who wrote that policy in stone.

I agree that if you take another human being hostage, you should be prepared to die.

Guy on the news just speculated that it was an old battlefield gas intended to incapacitate. Used in an enclosed area, it could have had an unanticipated effect, since that's not what it was designed for.

What are the Russians hiding? -People *always smuggle their own stuff into theaters, because the consession prices are always outrageous! So if the Russians are smuggling a few Jr. Mints and a vodka under their big coats when they go to the theaters, I think that's okay. When they start smuggling their own guns and bombs in... well, I think that's best left to the actors and actresses

The brutual truth is that there was no way to resolve this situation with loss of life, more if the explosives detonated, less with gas.
No answers, only pain for those alive.

Under Construction

Doesn't anyone here--but a few--dare to read anything other than US censored media? What a pity!

"However, the BBC reported last night that the US embassy has officially asked the Russians for more information, insisting it is crucial for the treatment of casualties...."

"Giorgi Vasiliev, a senior producer at the theatre who became the main linkman between the Chechens and the authorities, gave the Guardian a very different version of events from that given by the authorities the night before.

They had said the gas was used at 5.30am on Saturday because the gunmen had started shooting hostages, leaving the authorities with no alternative but to storm the building. But Mr Vasiliev, whose account tallied with that of many witnesses, said two hostages had been shot at 3am.

It was not a cold-blooded execution in line with a strict timetable of threats but the result of a panic among the hostages which led to a young boy screaming and jumping out of his seat. In response, the gunmen opened fire but missed, hitting two people nearby. A period of stunned calm followed until 6am.

Mr Vasiliev also revealed that the elite counter-terrorist unit, known as Alfa, seized an opportunity to gas the male Chechen leaders when they were in a theatre sideroom. The Federal Security Bureau had deployed listening devices on the roof and realised the women - who had most of the explosives strapped to their bodies - could not act without orders from a male leader.

The main assault at the front came 15 minutes later. Mr Vasiliev's account will leave Russian authorities open to charges of a cover-up. They had tried to justify their use of the gas as a measure of last resort in the face of the impending execution of hostages.

It also confirms suspicions that the women hostage-takers, as well as their leader, Arbi Barayev, were executed by the Russians while unconscious. The only resistance came from around 20 gunmen patrolling the corridors who shot at the Russian forces as they stormed the building. The Russians said three have been detained, the rest are dead...."

Full Story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,820633,00.html

Sidney Morning Herald

"Russian authorities have refused to identify the type of gas used in the weekend Moscow theatre rescue amid fears that it may have been the main cause of death of more than 118 hostages...."

"United States military experts and toxicologists believe the gas probably contained Valium or a form of BZ, a hallucinogenic...."

"The thing that pops into my mind is aerosolised Valium," said Dr Christopher Holstege, medical toxicology director at the University of Virginia. People exposed to it would feel sleepy and confused and at sufficiently high levels it could affect breathing and oxygen supply to vital organs...."

Full Story

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/27/1035683304757.html

Christian Science Monitor

"The initial wave of relief – and praise for President Vladimir Putin – that swept over Moscow is now turning to suspicion and anger as the death toll of the hostages continues to rise. Breaking a news blackout Sunday evening, a Moscow health official admitted that the gas used by Russian forces killed 115 of the 117 hostages that had died. The official said that 150 people were still in intensive care...."

"This latest report confirms suspicions that the world may not have been told the whole truth about the daring Russian spetznaz rescue, especially about the use of a secret "sleeping gas" that was deployed to immobilize Chechen hostage-takers...."

"Russian authorities have refused to name the gas used in the theater, explaining only that it was an experimental "neuroparalytic" agent developed by the FSB security service for use in hostage situations. Unofficial sources, quoted by Echo Moskvi independent radio, say the gas may contain the powerful tranquilizer Valium, or a nerve agent such as sarin or VX. On Sunday, the US government officially requested information about the substance used, noting that at least one American citizen is among those still hospitalized and suffering from the gas...."

"The US Embassy in Moscow told news agencies that it can't locate one of the two known American hostages. Russian authorities Sunday said they've been questioning some of the freed hostages and promised to begin releasing those who felt well enough to go home...."

Full Story

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2002/1028/p01s04-woeu.html

Hmmm, those stories were both in my local "US censored media" Sunday newspaper.

Hal, if you really believe that there is someone in the government telling the US press what they can report, you are really off the deep end. The government only wishes it had that power. They never have had, and never will have, that power in this country.

Shelly

Lol!

"Dan Rather drew a lot of media comment for breaking into sobs during his September 17 appearance on David Letterman's show, but the CBS news anchor didn't get much flak for his pledge of loyalty. "George Bush is the president," Rather said, "he makes the decisions." Speaking as "one American," the newsman added: "Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call...."

Dan Rather, Anchorman...what's he achored to? The establishment! The idea of journalism is to be an independent voice, an independent critic--not a handmaiden of government.


"In early May of 1991, two months after the Gulf War ended, the Washington editors for 15 major American news organizations sent a letter of complaint to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. They charged that the Pentagon had exerted "virtually total control" over coverage of the war. The letter represented completion of a ritual for American media coverage of U.S. military actions: News outlets routinely engage in self-censorship and sometimes grouse -- especially after the fact -- that the government has imposed too many restrictions on the press...."

"This fall, scant objections came from big media institutions or high-profile journalists when the Defense Department made clear its intentions to place severe limits on war-related information. "The press policies in the war on terrorism are looking a lot like the Gulf War policies established by Bush's father, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell," said University of Iowa journalism professor Jeffrey A. Smith, a scholar on wartime news coverage. "There is denial of access. The press pools have not been activated. The press briefings have been few and inadequate...."

http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/hal35.html

The military may not tell the media allot, and media agrees to only report what army lets them to report, in exchange to travel with a team of special ops for example. If the media finds another way to get in Iraq or lets say when Afghanistan war was going on, they would report what they want and u.s. military couldn’t do jack about it.

>The military may not tell the media allot, and media agrees
>to only report what army lets them to report, in exchange to
>travel with a team of special ops for example. If the media
>finds another way to get in Iraq or lets say when
>Afghanistan war was going on, they would report what they
>want and u.s. military couldn’t do jack about it.

Mainstream US media will NOT report what it wants because it wants access to areas and events that only the military allows in order to supply continued coverage of a war.

Anyone in the US mainstream media breeching agreements from the State Department wil not be allowed access or crucial reports and would be blackballed.

To this day, the events in Jenin were not sufficiently covered because the IDF shot at rogue reporters and ambulance drivers. And the only real reporting was coming other than US news sources. Many reporters risked getting shot, in fact several were killed. Where were guys like Dan Rather then?

Here are a few who've had reason to present a skewed version of reality. You know, this is like a grain of sand on the beach. We live in a world where those who are running the show are liars and whores. It seems like they are all on the take and can be bought for the price of a new Lexus. Investigative reporting has ceased to exist in major media and one must go to the fringe, read everything you can, and try to sort it out for yourself. I really think we're on our own when trying to get at the truth. When it comes to information supplied by ANY government - forget it. The notion of it is is laughable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Talking heads, wonks, scribblers and wise men

Who got blood money from Enron in the war of words?

"Enron 'collected visible people' by gathering up pundits, journalists and politicians and placing them on lucrative retainers. For a couple days spent chatting about current events with executives at Enron's Houston headquarters, advisers could walk away with five-figure payments." -- Washington Post, 10 February 2002


Bill Kristol $100,000
Paul Krugman $50,000
Larry Kudlow $50,000
Lawrence Lindsay $50,000
Peggy Noonan over $25,000 for minor speechwriting
Irwin Stelzer $50,000
Robert Zoellick $50,000

http://www.pir.org/enron/

Media face information squeeze

Jessica Hodgson
Wednesday September 26, 2001

The media are facing an "unprecedented" degree of control of information from the US and UK military and defence agencies, according to Sky's head of news, Nick Pollard.

"I'm told by people on the ground in Washington that it's unprecedented to get this little information from the Pentagon," he said.

"If such a thing is possible, there are almost no leaks. It's a measure of the determination of the Pentagon and the ministry of defence to control the information flow.

"If and when there are western troops on the ground a media information unit will have to be set up," he said. "But at the moment there is little information available."

Pollard contrasted the situation with previous international conflicts involving US, British or Nato troops.

In the recent Kosovo conflict, Nato gave briefings to the western media on a daily basis about military activities in the region.

The secrecy on the part of defence agencies reflects the perceived importance of keeping military information a secret, he said.

Pollard was speaking on the day that the secretary of the D Notice committee issued a request that the media "minimise speculation" about any future military action.

The secretary of the D Notice committee, rear admiral Nick Wilkinson, said he believed relations between the Ministry of Defence and the media had entered a more "grown-up phase".

He said the combination of the end of the Cold War and a move towards liberalisation had contributed towards greater freedom of information.

"We don't go round chucking D Notices out these days the way we used to," he added.

The D Notice committee comprises 14 journalists - press and broadcast - and four civil servants.

Included on the committee are ITV's controller of news, current affairs, religion and arts, Steve Anderson; ITN's editor-in-chief, Richard Tait; Sky News's managing editor, Simon Cole; managing editor of the Times, George Brock; and the Daily Mail's managing editor, Robin Esser.

It does not have the authority to enforce decisions, but makes recommendations to senior media figures about the reporting of issues of military and strategic sensitivity.

There are currently five "standing" D Notices, on subjects ranging from domestic terrorism to nuclear weapons.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,558571,00.html

Hal 9000,I am still courious:What kind of car do you drive and what do you or did you do for a living?

81 Newbee

LOL!

While I don't think the motor vehicle he drives is featured here (pertinence?)his occupation is http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/ WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Shelly,

SEE!

UFO Coverup Makes Us Distrust U.S.
25-Oct-2002

A new national opinion poll finds that 72% of Americans believe the government is not telling us everything it knows about UFOs. The poll reveals that more men than women think information about UFOs and ETs (66-63% vs. 54%) should be shared with the public. The younger you are, the more you think the government is withholding information about UFOs and extraterrestrial life. According to the poll, 80% of 18-24 year olds, 75% of 25-34 year olds, and 73% of 35-49 year olds say that the government is hiding information about UFOs.

What did I tell you?

LOL!

Why are you surprised? Do u really think government will tell us UFO exists? No they will not, and will continue denying for as long as they can for a simple reason. People are not ready for it. Even do allot of people believe in UFO, because not believing in it would be illogical people mentally are not ready to know that they exist. Also if we are to assume that our government had contact with them, which I don't believe they have (a secret can't stay in Washington for more then a day) they may have an agreement that aliens will pick time and place when they will reveal them self to the world. I think in about 60-100 years from now we will either be told they exist and have so much evidence of their existence that the government will not be able to deny it anymore, till then we will just have us our logic.

ylen13,

Sorry guy, I was joking. I don't think about UFO's one way or another. I do believe in the Coneheads though. They are from France and drink large quantities of liquids.

>ylen13,
>
>Sorry guy, I was joking. I don't think about UFO's one way
>or another. I do believe in the Coneheads though. They are
>from France and drink large quantities of liquids.

Lol, neither do I, but it don't mean I can't argue that side. Actually the only thing I do believe is that intelligent live exist. Thinking otherwise would be illogical

>Actually the only thing I do believe is that
>intelligent live exist. Thinking otherwise would be
>illogical.

I agree.

That's a good one Hal9000!
On the topic, maybe the 'real' truth will never come out.
As in any case, take everything with a grain of salt.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

"My brain is the key that sets me free."

--Houdini

>On the topic, maybe the 'real' truth will never come out.
>As in any case, take everything with a grain of salt.

"Tv only lets you see what he (they) (want)s you to see...."


--Andrini

You speak truth!!

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

How many of you believe that the only reason that USA is not saying that Russian operation was a complete failure is because, they don't want to lose the minimum support that they may have from Russia regarding Iraq. Also they do not want to take a chances that Russia will veto their UN resolution if they start criticize them.

>How many of you believe that the only reason that USA is not
>saying that Russian operation was a complete failure is
>because, they don't want to lose the minimum support that
>they may have from Russia regarding Iraq. Also they do not
>want to take a chances that Russia will veto their UN
>resolution if they start criticize them.

How many of you believe that the only reason that USA is not
saying that Russian operation was a complete failure is
because, It would act similarly in a similar situation?

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

I hope so, and I hope that we would be as successful. This operation was extremely successful from a CT point of view. I know of no situation faced by any CT unit in the world to date that was as extreme as this and had anything resembling the success this operation had.

The explosives weren't set off. The terrorists were killed. The majority of the hostages were freed. That qualifies as a success, no way around it. CT Operations are high risk, and Murphy rides the coat-tails. This one, Murphy struck both ways, but on balance, the Russians did well.

I am opposed to all forms of terrorism but this will continue to be an on-going cycle of violence and unless you want to intensify further attacks, you will try and find out what lies behind them. I notice there is little or no terrorist problem in countries like Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, etc. Hmm.

Read the reasons expressed for the problem in Chechnya:

"The attackers threatened to blow it up unless Putin agreed to withdraw troops from mainly Muslim Chechnya...."

"The attackers included 18 women, many of whom said they were war widows...."

HAl,

You're living in a fantasy world. Law enforcement and Intelligence agencies have penetrated terrorist organizations in the past, and currently. The lessons learned are consistent. Terrorists are not rational or reasonable. Their reasons have less to do with their actions than their hate. They don't want their reasons resolved. They feed off their hate. They are, by and large, mentally unbalanced. They are effectively rabid animals. You don't treat rabid animals. You kill them.

Uh huh. Who's living in a fantasy world Al? I see how the disgust the US feels towards terrorists is selective. We are to applaud the terror of those groups whom officials approve. At one time President Reagan actually said, "I am a Contra." The Contras were terrorists. The corporate media excuses the terror of friendly governments. It excused the terror of Pinochet, or the terror of the Shah of Iran and Suharto in East Timor. And in the case of Osama, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein--yesterday's heros are today's terrorists. The victims of State sanctioned terrorism compared to that of others is literally 1 to 100,000.

Ah, I see you've been to Nicaragua as well.

HAL, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Go visit a few of those places.

Was it a "Complete" failure? It looks like it could have turned out a LOT worse! Some lives were lost, true, but in the scope of things, it seems to have been unavoidable, and unfortunate. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the would haves, should haves and could haves, always surface after an incident such as this. It's easy to criticize from the perspective of an armchair quarterback on the morning after the game. If you were there, would you have had all the answers? I doubt it.

Violence and death are never signs of success.

>Violence and death are never signs of success.
Hal, perhaps you can utilize your impressive talents for persuasion and inform the Muslim people of this? http://www.muslimsonline.com/
WALDO

Walter A Robertson

"US Counterinsurgency (Terrorism) against people fighting for social justice:

1978- The protracted war against the people of El Salvador is one of many examples of US backed counterinsurgency. US trained and equipped Salvadoran troops massacred whole villages, as in El Mozote, suspected of being sympathetic to the guerrillas. Between 1978 and 1994 some 70,000 Salvadorans were killed by government forces. 540,000 fled into exile. Another 250,000 were placed into resettlement camps by the military. All this in a country of only four million people.

In neighboring Guatemala the loss of life do to USA sponsored 35 year-old conflict was estimated as 100,000 by 1994, with an estimated 60,000 disappeared. Some 440 villages suspected of sympathizing with guerrillas have been destroyed and most of their residents massacred. Almost a million people have fled the country and another million have become internal migrants, forced from their homes in wide spread counterinsurgency actions.

In Columbia thousands were murdered by government forces in a long guerilla war. In the years of armistice that followed, more than a thousand anti capitalist or reformist politicians and activist were killed by right wing paramilitary groups including two presidential candidates of the Patriotic Union and a member of the Columbian senate who was head of the Communist party. The killings continue there also without a murmer of protest in the US.

In indonesia, the US backed military killed between 500,000 to a Million people in 1965 destroying the Indonesian Communist Party and most of its suspected sympathizers in what even the New York Times (March 2, 1966) called "one of the most savage mass slaughters of modern political history." Ten years later the same Indonesian military invaded East Timor, overthrew its reformist government and killed between 100,000 to 200,000 out of a population of about 600,000. The aggression was launched the day after Ford and Kissenger concluded a visit to Indonesia. Philip Leichty, a CIA official there at the time commented in the New York Times (August 12, 1994) that General Soeharto of Indonesia was "explicitly given the green light to do what he did." Leichty noted that most of the weapons, ammunition and food used by the Indonesian military were provided by the US.

The US national security state has participated in covert action or proxy mercenary wars against revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ehtiopia, Portugal, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Timor, Western Sahara and elsewhere usually with dreadful devistation and loss of life for the indigenous populations. Hostile actions have also been directed at reformist governments in Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Syria, Zaire, Jamaica, South Yemen, the Fiji Islands and elsewhere.

Since World War II, US forces have directly invaded or launched aerial attacks against Vietnam, The Dominican Republic, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iraq and Somilia, showing varying dergrees of death and destruction.

Before World War II, US military forces waged a bloody and protracted war of conquest in the Philippines from 1899 to 1903. Along with 14 other capitalist nations, the US invaded and occupied parts of socialist Russia from 1918 to 1921. US expositionary forces fought in China along with other Western armies to suppress the Boxer Rebellion and keep the Chinese under the heel of European and North American colonizers.

US marines invaded and occupied Nacaragua in 1912 and again from 1926 to 1933; Haiti from 1915 to 1934; Cuba from 1898 to 1902; Mexico in 1914 and 1916. There were 6 invasions of Honduras between 1911 to 1925 and Panama was occupied between 1903 and 1914...."

--Against Empire
Michael Parenti

Hal, you are very quick to change the subject when your positions become indefensible.

There is no possible justification for terrorism, which may be defined as the deliberate murder of innocents to further a cause. I see no significant quantitative or qualitative distinction between the slaughter on 9/11 in New York, and the impending slaughter of over 700 innocents in a Moscow theater. If Muslim fanatics choose to wage a war against civilian populations, they deserve to reap not victory, but death, by any means available.

War is between soldiers. You seem to want to justify the murder of civilians with any excuse you can find. Surely in any modern war the risk of civilian casualties exists, but there is a distinction between unintended casualties, and deliberate, premeditated murder of the maximum number of ordinary people possible.

Shelly

Say what?! I'm completely baffled by your comment! How in earth am I changing the subject? Terrorism IS the subject! That's right, there is no justification for terrorism, but when the state does it it's not called terrorism!

I define terrorism as: the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political ends. Terrorism involves activities such as assassinations, bombings and random killings. The World court condemned the US war against Nicaragua for the unlawful use of force (another word for terrorism). It was then taken to the UN security council who adopted a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. The US vetoed. The US is the only nation on record to veto international law and be condemned for terrorism at the same time. Then the UN assembly passed a similar resolution and only the US, Israel and El Salvador opposed. How much do we know about this? How much do we talk about it in the media and in schools?

Didn't you read anything I included in Post #40?! Doesn't that tell you something? Don't you see the hypocrisy in not recognizing the terrorist atrocities executed by the US in the countries listed in my post?

How in God's name have you interpreted any of my posts to mean terrorists should reap victory? I bring attention to the motives for terrorist actions and suggest solutions.

You say, "War is between soldiers." How would you justify the slaughter of 200,000 civilians in East Timor.

Hal,

You been to East Timor? How about El Salvador?

I'd be happy to introduce you to men who were there when you claim the US was committing atrocities. They weren't.

Your post is kaka, and that is a fact.

So some of u say the operation was success. How can the operation be success if Russian own doctors don't know what gas was used, and their for they are unable to treat them affectively

Ylen,

There would never have been a hostage problem if Russia hadn't invaded Chechnya to begin with. Let them explain why the Russian government invaded Chechnya.

If I understand your version of English, it can be termed a moderate success because rescued hostages arrived in one piece at the hospital, to be treated, instead of being blown to pieces in the theater.
The only place where there is 100% success in anything is in the movies, or in HAL9000's make believe world.

As for the doctors not having an antidote, they should do what any doctor in any ED in the world should do, treat the symptoms, until they know what is causing it. In cases of incapacitating agents, supportive care usually is enough. There have been several bogus reports reporting the use of everything from an agent called BZ, to Valium, all conjecture.
Closer cooperation between the police unit and the hospital would be nice, but there may be operational or security reasons why it is not being revealed; I don't know, you don't know and until more information is revealed, any more speculation is pointless.

>The only place where there is 100% success in anything is in
>the movies, or in HAL9000's make believe world.

To characterize the culmination of this event a success is as absurd as declaring successful--the survivors of a nuclear war. Only those who believe "War is Peace" would coin this a success, instead of expressing a need to address the reason there was a conflict to begin with.

It is a tragedy all the way around.

No one is denying that the deaths of the people was terrible. I don't think that anyone is saying that it was a "Complete" success. You can't deny that it could have turned out much worse than it did. Could they have done things differently? Like I said before, hindsight is 20/20.

Lol!!

Al, do you think I'd just make all this up?! There are scores of books, newspaper accounts, web sites and CIA operatives who have gone on record in support of my post. Do you really want me to provide you with documentation?

Say the word. You're behaving like those who claim there was never a holocaust.

Bullshit, Hal. I know people who were there, and I know the capabilities of the CIA. Your sources reach conclusions unsupported by reality of the situations because they don't understand the situations. Haven't been there, haven't done that..and think the world should work like some movie script.

"...and think the world should work like some movie script."

You mean like Rambo?

Hal, you truly are a very troubled individual. Have you considered getting help?

And you have an unfortunate personality.

So I've been told. But then again, I'm not really interested in whether I'm liked, I am interested in my family's safety and seeing as many of the people who serve our country die of old age as possible. Having actually seen what is necessary to ensure that happens, I'm not playing games out of books or silliness.

Oh, and "the unlawful use of force (another word for terrorism)." is incorrect.

"I am interested in my family's safety and seeing as many of the people who serve our country die of old age as possible."

That's a good thing.

I don't mind those with unfortunate personalities. All God's children need love.

Al,

I respect each man's chosen path in life.

Maybe, Hal

But you are a fool if you think that terrorists respect yours.

Terrorists are desperate. Why do you think their desperate Al?

Terrorists aren't desperate, they're insane.

Stop trying to use your idea of reasoning to evaluate their motivations. It won't work, it shows no concept and no experience of who and what they are. Relying too much on the media instead of going and seeing for yourself.

>Terrorists aren't desperate, they're insane.

Really?

In the 1930's and 1940's, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described as, "Terrorist." By 1942 the Holocaust was occurring and a liberal sympathy with the Jewish people had built up in the western world. At that point the terrorists of Palestine who were Zionists, suddenly began being described as "Freedom Fighters." At least two Israeli Prime ministers--including Menachem Begin--had posters with their pictures saying "Wanted-Terrorists-Bounty." The highest prize was on the head of Begin in the amount of $100,000 British Pounds.

You were there and saw that, huh, Hal?

In 1985 President Reagan received a group of bearded men wearing turbans at the White House. At a press conference he pointed to them and said, "These (men) are the moral equivalent of America's Founding Fathers." Those men were the mujahedin.

The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today.

Most of the remaining Muj were members of the Northern Alliance, not the Taleban or Al Queda...

How many of those old men with beards that Reagan met can you identify and tell me what they are doing and where?

>The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today and the hero
>of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today.

Unfortunately both terrorists and heroes change allegiances as quickly as I change underwear !! So yes yesterdays hero could well become todays terrorist. That is not an anomaly just a fact of life (and death) !

The one constant seems to be that Islam is interpreted by *extremists* to be the one and only true faith and that non believers should be eliminated !

Tone
Tone

"The highest prize was on the head of Begin in the amount of $100,000 British Pounds."

Exactly what unit of currency is that HAL?? $ or Pounds?

The blowing up of the King David hotel, which was being used as a British military barracks, is what led to the British labelling the Stern Gang, the Irgun and other precursors of the Mossad, and Menachem Begin as terrorists. They perceived the British Mandate troops to be their enemy, and thought a military barracks was a legitimate target.

That is quantitatively and qualitatively different than blowing up people attending the theater in Moscow, blowing up nightclubbers in Bali, or killing office workers in the WTC. That is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

You proclaim to be a writer, (self-published, I'm guessing), then semantics is, or should be important to you, so please take some time before posting reactionary crap like most of your posts above.
Take the time to get it right, at least the way you see it.

You read a lot, which is good, and I must admit I am impressed by your knowledge of St. Augustine's City of God (please tell me you were not schooled by Benedictines }> ), but somewhere along the way, you and Anakin Skywalker have the same problem, you have both been seduced by Dark Side.

And please, no more lectures about Chechnya; the problem has existed since the 15th century, neither you or I or anyone else not involved can comprehend the problems there. If you have known any Russians, they have an overwhelming dedication to their country, and after the nightmare they went through at the hands of the Nazis 60 years ago, defensible borders mean a lot to them.
There is more than enough violence on both sides of that struggle, way too much to be simply dismissed as a struggle over an oil pipeline.

Hey No_One:

Menachem Begin's activities while he was labeled a terrorist is completely irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing relative to my analogy regarding terrorists and the nature of changing roles from hero to terrorist and back again at the discrimination of those in power. You obviously subscribe to the hypocrisy and double standard of the approval and justification of state sanctioned terrorism responsible for the death and destruction of far more lives than private terrorism and somehow I feel confident you share ideologies subscribed to by the Reagan Administration when describing the Middle East--which in your mind would include the Palestinian struggle against illegal occupation as, "A plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself in a return to barbarism on the modern age." And compounding your hypocrisy, I feel certain you are one to cry foul because Iraq hasn't met UN Security Violations while you deliberately ignore the violations of UN Resolutions Israel has participated in for the last 35 years.

If you disagree with me, why don't you show everyone you have the character to exchange ideas with me in a sustained debate instead of monitoring my posts and swooping down every now and then to attack and run.

On and on it goes, endlessly. HAL, you are beginning to make Pavlov's dogs look like independent thinkers.

The activities of the Jewish Resistance against the British Mandate have everything to do with distinguishing between military and civilian targets.

Make no mistake, I am no apologist for Israel, for there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Most reasonable people can see that, you refuse to, in your view of the world things are black and white, good guys against bad guys, good versus evil. I have been in places where it can be hard to tell the difference. In your comfortable living room your views of who is right and wrong are meaningless.

And now point by point: I don't obviously subscribe to anything. I rarely use the word "terrorism" because it is so subject to interpretation between differing sides.
About death and destruction: I work in a hospital Emergency Department, I have seen more death and dying in more countries than any 50 people you know put together, loss of life on any scale means a lot to me. Believe me HAL, the places I have seen death and destruction would make even a cynic like you think twice, from the people necklaced with burning tires in the streets of Cap Haitien, Haiti, to the shapeless masses on the sand in southern Iraq that used to be Iraqi soldiers. That is a sight no human being should have to see, for when you do see it, you don't forget it, it affects you forever.

I am no warmonger, quite the contrary, I hate war, I've seen too much of it, not on the TV news, but up close and personal. It means innocent people die for no reason of their making. But there comes a time when it is the only method, or the least objectionable method, of changing things for the better. I have seen dozens of bodies buried in mass graves outside Zvornik in Bosnia, war would definitely be a better option than having to see that again. Those aren't my rules, I don't like them, but that is the way the world and human nature works.

And while I think it is another one of your inventive misquotes to say someone in the Reagan administration 20 years ago described the Palestinian uprising as "A plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself in a return to barbarism on the modern age", I would have to say that a group of people that sends their children out with bombs strapped to their bodies on suicide missions against civilian targets could accurately be described as depraved opponents of civilization and/or barbarians.
Could there possibly be any other interpretation of those actions? If there is, I'm sure you have it.

I don't give a damn about UN resolutions either way, the UN is theoretically a good idea, but where the rubber meets the road, they are a big bureaucracy where votes are bought and paid for; a group that would have trouble organizing a 2 car funeral. Not just my opinion, talk to some of the people that work for the UN. They have some exceptional people, all trying to make a difference, some risking their lives on a regular basis, but the stories they can tell you about UN screwups that cost real people their lives make you wonder why they continue on. They are better people than I am.
And any organization that gives a country full of collaborationist, two-faced weasels like France equal footing and voting rights with stand-up countries like the US and the UK is an archaic dinosaur, and needs some modernizing to reflect present day reality. But then, you don't deal with reality, I forgot.


"If you disagree with me, why don't you show everyone you have the character to exchange ideas with me in a sustained debate instead of monitoring my posts and swooping down every now and then to attack and run."

Because unlike you, I have a real job in the real world, 2 jobs if you count Army Reserve. Unlike you I don't sit in front of a monitor 24/7 trying to get a life.
"Monitoring" your posts is not even on my top 100 list of things I do every day.

I pop in from time to time to learn something, to answer a question if I can, to laugh at your latest posts, but like most normal people, I don't live here.

This is a quote from you on another forum, after Balo ripped you a new a**hole:

"Bring it on Balo! I'll be right here waiting. I love vaporizing all this bullshit propaganda and attempts to distort the truth. I live and breathe this stuff. It's all I do and I got nothing but time."

Teaching you about right and wrong or how the world works is not all I have to do, and it apparently would be a full-time job. Unlike you, I don't profess to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I muddle along like everyone else,...on the other hand I do have a real good sense of when someone is full of BS.

So debating you is not on my list of important things to do, I usually like more of a challenge. I'm sure you would resort quickly to the ad hominem attacks you are so fond of making, when nothing else seems to be going your way.
And attacking isn't quite the right word to use when someone points out your goofs.

And besides, don't the Geneva Conventions have rules about engaging in a gunfight with an unarmed man? }>

No_One:

I love being on the web and besides reading and writing, I spend as much time on the web as possible and find the web to be an invaluable research tool. In most cases, I also enjoy exchanging ideas with people and find the exchange of ideas to have an educational benefit all its own by benefiting from being able to view the world through someone else's eyes.

There's only one thing about the web I find distateful: encountering people like you. People like you seem to derive some sadistic pleasure in dishing out petty personal insults to people you don't even know instead of discussing the issues. You appear to take pleasure in inflicting pain on others for having a different point of view, and feel the need to inflate your own self image with personal anecdotes and occupational revelations as testimonials designed to diminish the personal value of one voicing opposition to your ideas.

Now originally, I had composed a much more agressive response, but I was forced to watch our family cat struggle and die before our eyes tonight and it brought to mind the tenuousness of life and now I don't have the heart to get angry. Then I realized, why should I ever get angry or emotional about a simple disagreement with someone to begin with--it's not worth it.

So I've learned something tonight, and that's that I personally am going to be much kinder and much more gentle when I disagree with people.

"The activities of the Jewish Resistance against the British Mandate have everything to do with distinguishing between military and civilian targets."

JERUSALEM AFTER THE WAR

1948 - 1949

August 11

Ben-Gurion warned that the Stern Gang might try to kidnap Bernadotte. Some suggested using force against the Stern, but others wanted the government to talk to them and persuade them to give up violence

Sporadic sniping and bombings went on all month long between Israelis and Arabs in throughout Jerusalem and Israel.

September 7

Ben-Gurion, having failed to persuade the Stern Gang to renounce violence, ordered a military raid on its training camp

September 16

Count Bernadotte submitted a report to the UN. He had given up his earlier idea for placing Jerusalem under Arab control. Instead, he thought the city should be internationalized and demilitarized.

September 17

Count Bernadotte planned to have tea with Bernard Joseph, the Israeli Military Governor. But on the way from his offices at Government House to Rehavia (where Bernard Joseph lived), Bernadotte's car was ambushed by the Stern Gang, and he was killed.

One of the Stern Gang leaders was Yitzhak Yzernitzky (who later changed his name to Yitzhak Shamir and became Prime Minister of Israel).

Bernard Joseph consulted with Moshe Dayan on a large-scale military operation to round up all Stern Gang members. A curfew was imposed, a prolonged search was conducted, and 184 members of the Stern Gang were arrested. This brought about the end of the Stern Gang. The murderer of Bernadotte, however, was not found until many years later.

http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/afterwar.htm

http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/entrance.htm

"Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators...."

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator." In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)..."

"In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order..."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html


On September 18, 1982, the Lebanese Christian militia forces allied to Israeli forces began slaughtering up to 2,000 unarmed Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside Beirut. The massacre unfolded over three days when Israel allowed its Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia allies into the refugee camps. Many of the victims were stabbed and a large number of women were murdered after being gang-raped.

The man who is now the Prime Minister of Israel, General Ariel Sharon, was in overall command of the Israeli forces at the time. Then, he claimed there were 2,000 "terrorists" in the camps. But the subsequent Israeli Kahan commission reported that Israeli troops surrounding the camps knew what was happening. The Israeli inquiry also found Sharon "indirectly responsible," and he was forced to resign.

Then there's the ongoing state sanctioned terrorism and slaughter of the Palestinian people who are under illegal occupation.

Terrorism is committed by all people.

LMAO

A site with no references, no sources and no author and we're supposed to take that as history?

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=682755

Of course it is relevant. You just want to steer the direction of the discussion as you see fit, regardless of whether the rest of us give a hoot for your rediculous and contradictory paranoia. Go visit some of the places you talk about. Might actually learn something.

At
>least two Israeli Prime ministers--including Menachem
>Begin--had posters with their pictures saying
>"Wanted-Terrorists-Bounty." The highest prize was on the
>head of Begin in the amount of $100,000 British Pounds.

Who was the other PM with a bounty?

Louis

AL-BAQARA (THE COW) ............ Behold! when they meet the men of Faith, they say: "We believe": But
when they meet each other in private, they
say: "Shall you tell them what God hath
revealed to you, that they may engage you in
argument about it before your Lord?"- Do ye
not understand (their aim)?
WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

You never been in the shit have you? You ever get wet? In the military term!

Under Construction

I find that a rather perplexing question from a guy who's both flashing and wearing a peace symbol.

Allow me to post this excerpt from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" COLONEL
Marine, what is that button on your
body
armor?

JOKER
A peace symbol, sir.


COLONEL
Where'd you get it?

JOKER
I don't
remember, sir.

COLONEL
What is that you've got written
on your
helmet?

JOKER
"Born to Kill," sir.


COLONEL
You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and
you wear a
peace button. What's that
supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?!


JOKER
No, sir.

COLONEL
You'd better get your head
and your ass wired
together, or I will take a giant shit on you!


JOKER
Yes, sir.

COLONEL
Now answer my question or
you'll be standing
tall before the man.

JOKER
I
think I was trying to suggest something
about the duality of man,
sir.

COLONEL
The what?

JOKER
The
duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.

COLONEL
Whose
side are you on, son?

JOKER
Our side, sir.


COLONEL
Don't you love your country?

JOKER
Yes,
sir.

COLONEL
Then how about getting with the program?

Why don't you jump on the team and come
on in for the big win?


JOKER
Yes, sir!

COLONEL
Son, all I've ever asked
of my marines is that
they obey my orders as they would the word

of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese,
because inside every
gook there is an
American trying to get out. It's a hardball

world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until
this peace craze blows
over.

JOKER
Aye-aye, sir.

WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Attachment #1, (gif file)

LOL!! That was great. I saved that. Here's something similiar:

DOOLITTLE
This is Lieutenant Doolittle calling
Bomb #20. I repeat previous order,
you are to disarm yourself and
return immediately to the bomb bay.
Do you understand?

BOMB #20
(over)
I am programmed to detonate in
fourteen minutes thirty seconds.
Detonation will occur at the
programmed time.

DOOLITTLE
Bomb, this is Doolittle. You are not
to detonate, repeat, you are not to
detonate in the bomb bay. Disarm
yourself. This is an order.

EXTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
I read you, Lieutenant Doolittle,
but I am programmed to detonate in
fourteen minutes. Detonation will
occur at the programmed time.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

PINBACK
Fourteen minutes to detonation.

The men stare at each other.

RECORDED VOICE
Attention. Attention. The bomb has
malfunctioned. Automatic dampers
have gone into effect, and will
confine the explosion to an area one
mile in diameter. Please contact
mission control and await further
instructions. Thank you for
observing all safety precautions.

Pause.

DOOLITTLE
Hello, bomb, are you with me?

BOMB #20
Of course.

DOOLITTLE
Are you willing to entertain a few
concepts?

BOMB #20
I am always receptive to
suggestions.

DOOLITTLE
Fine. Think about this one, then:
how do you know you exist?

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
What's he doin'?

PINBACK
I think he's talking to it.

EXTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
Well of course I exist.

DOOLITTLE
But how do you know you exist?

BOMB #20
It is intuitively obvious.

DOOLITTLE
Intuition is no proof. What concrete
evidence do you have of your own
existence?

BOMB #20
Hmm... Well, I think, therefore I
am.

DOOLITTLE
That's good. Very good. Now then,
how do you know that anything else
exists?

BOMB #20
My sensory apparatus reveals it to
me.

DOOLITTLE
Right!

BOMB #20
This is fun.

DOOLITTLE
All right now, here's the big
question: how do you know that the
evidence your sensory apparatus
reveals to you is correct?

DOOLITTLE
What I'm getting at is this: the
only experience that is directly
available to you is your sensory
data. And this data is merely a
stream of electrical impulses which
stimulate your computing center.

BOMB #20
In other words, all I really know
about the outside universe relayed
to me through my electrical
connections.

DOOLITTLE
Exactly.

BOMB #20
Why, that would mean... I really
don't know what the outside universe
is like at all, for certain.

DOOLITTLE
That's it.

BOMB #20
Intriguing. I wish I had more time
to discuss this matter.

DOOLITTLE
Why don't you have more time?

BOMB #20
Because I must detonate in seventy-
five seconds.


DOOLITTLE
Now, bomb, consider this next
question, very carefully. What is
your one purpose in life?

BOMB #20
To explode, of course.

DOOLITTLE
And you can only do it once, right?

BOMB #20
That is correct.

DOOLITTLE
And you wouldn't want to explode on
the basis of false data, would you?

BOMB #20
Of course not.

DOOLITTLE
Well then, you've already admitted
that you have no real proof of the
existence of the outside universe.

BOMB #20
Yes, well...

DOOLITTLE
So you have no absolute proof that
Sergeant Pinback ordered you to
detonate.

BOMB #20
I recall distinctly the detonation
order. My memory is good on matters
like these.

DOOLITTLE
Yes, of course you remember it, but
what you are remembering is merely a
series of electrical impulses which
you now realize have no necessary
connection with outside reality.

BOMB #20
True, but since this is so, I have
no proof that you are really telling
me all this.

DOOLITTLE
That's all beside the point. The
concepts are valid, wherever they
originate.

BOMB #20
Hmmm...

DOOLITTLE
So if you detonate in...

BOMB #20
... nine seconds...

DOOLITTLE
... you may be doing so on the basis
of false data.

BOMB #20
I have no proof that it was false
data.

DOOLITTLE
You have no proof that it was
correct data.

There is a long pause.

BOMB #20
I must think on this further.

THE BOMB RAISES ITSELF BACK INTO THE SHIP. Doolittle practically
collapses with relief.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
It didn't go off.

PINBACK
Oh, God...

BOILER
It didn't go off.

PINBACK
Boiler, we're alive. My heart.

BOILER
No bombs today. No bombs. Big
Boiler's back in business. No bombs
today.

PINBACK
All right, bomb, prepare to receive
new orders.

BOMB #20
(over)
You are false data.

PINBACK
Huh?

BOMB #20
Therefore, I shall ignore you.

PINBACK
Hello, bomb.

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
False data can act only as a
distraction. Therefore. I shall
refuse to perceive you.

PINBACK
(over)
Hey, bomb.

BOMB #20
The only thing which exists is
myself.

PINBACK
(over)
Bomb?

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

PINBACK
Snap out of it, bomb.

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
In the beginning there was darkness,
and the darkness was without form
and void.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
What the hell?

PINBACK
Yoo hoo, bomb...

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
And in addition to the darkness
there was also me. And I moved upon
the face of the darkness.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
Bomb, hey bomb.

PINBACK
Hey, bomb...

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
And I saw that I was alone.

Pause.

BOMB #20
(cont'd)
Let there be light.

THE SCREEN GOES WHITE.

Very, very good

Louis

Putin is now willing to cut a meager deal by giving up some control and some oil. I doubt it will be good enough:

Chechen referendum plan

Jonathan Steele in Moscow
Wednesday October 30, 2002
The Guardian

Russia is to press ahead with a referendum in Chechnya on a new constitution giving the republic wide powers of self-government, senior ministers said yesterday.

Meanwhile, it will soon get its own locally recruited police force and a police ministry, so that Russian army and interior ministry troops there can be reduced to a minimum.

The announcement was made after President Vladimir Putin met his security ministers, and is clearly meant as a response to the calls inside and outside Russia for new efforts to find a political solution to the three-year war.

The hostage taking in Moscow last week refocused attention on the conflict, which Russia has repeatedly claimed is winding down, even though its soldiers continue to die at a rate of two or three a day.

Four were killed yesterday when an interior ministry helicopter was shot down as it was landing at the heavily guarded Russian military headquarters at Khankala.

The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who is much respected in Russia for his independent stand on Iraq, said yesterday: "We underline our solidarity with the Russian people in the brutal terrorist attacks such as the recent one in Moscow.

"At the same time we are pressing for a political solution of the conflicts in Chechnya and the Caucasus region."

His foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, echoed the appeal in a speech to the Bundestag.

"Anyone who knows the history of the Caucasus and of Chechnya knows that no solution can be achieved there by force, but only further terrible bloodbaths," he said.

While laying out its plans for a political settlement, the Kremlin made it clear that there would be no peace talks with Aslan Maskhadov, the last elected president of Chechnya, who is still recognised by the various resistance groups as their representative.

Abdul-Hakim Sultigov, Mr Putin's special representative for Chechnya, told a Russian newspaper yesterday: "Talks mean giving someone a monopoly. This kind of talks will not happen.

"No single group in Chechnya has a monopoly on deciding the fate of its people. Otherwise there will be civil war."

Mr Sultigov, himself a Chechen, said the republic was split into groups ranging from the government supported by the Kremlin, to a series of armed bands.

It was vital to hold talks with all significant public figures in Chechnya, including those elected in 1997 to the last Chechen parliament.

The plan for a referendum was disclosed last spring. It rules out independence, but the republic would be able to keep tax revenues from oil, similar to those enjoyed by Tatarstan and Bashkyria, two of the biggest Russian republics with large Muslim populations.

Mr Putin has frequently argued that Mr Maskhadov wasted the two years of virtual independence he had after Russian troops left Chechnya in 1997. The republic descended into further chaos in which hundreds of Chechens and foreigners were taken hostage.

The Kremlin plan to give the republic its own police has run into fierce resistance in the army high command and the interior ministry, according to Sanobar Sharmatova, who writes on Chechen affairs for the weekly Moscow News.

"Too many officers are making money out of this war and they realise that if they have to withdraw they will lose a good source of funds," she said yesterday.

The interior minister, Boris Gryzlov, said yesterday that 15 of Chechnya's 19 districts already had their own police.

Sergei Ivanov, the defence minister, said some troops would remain in Chechnya "permanently".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,822186,00.html