Replies

I'm disgusted by the media's use of phrase Chechyn rebels. Using the term rebel implies defiance. The Chechyns are not defiant, they are Islamic separatist who see no difference between killing Russians and killing sheep. Once the first Chechyn war ended in 1996, the Chechyns were allowed self rule. In June of 1995, Chechyn gunmen took 2,000 Russian hostages at a hospital near Chechnya leaving more than 100 dead. In January of 1996, Chechyn militants seized 3,000 Russian hostages at another hospital that left at least 78 dead in week-long fight. In 1999 thousands of Chechyn Muslim fundamentalists, whose aim was to merge Dagestan with neighboring Chechnya in a single Islamic state, invaded Dagestan. Russia soon came to the defense of Dagestan and later went to war against Chechnya after two apartments in Moscow were bombed by Chechyns leaving over 300 Russians dead. In October of 2000, Jaish Mohammed (Mohammed's Army) took responsibility of the bombing of the USS Cole. This is a Islamic terrorist group operating out of Chechnya and Dagestan. I don't have any sympathies for these Islamic separatist. There are good Chechyns who do not want war, but these so called rebels have the same agenda as Osama bin Laden, they want all of the non-Muslims dead.

gorebegone: ""The Chechen rebels,.."
should read, " The islamist terrorist homicide bombers from chechen..."
-------

Reuters still won't refer to even Al Qaeda terrorists, as terrorists -- only as "militants", "rebels" and so on. It makes me ill. I think the US media should have boycotted Reuters over this -- it's an affront to the 3000 dead Americans and all the rest of us.