This does not qualify as news. Media outlets of any relevance across western world have been practically in unison for long time when it comes to qualifying terrorist actions of terrorists on Russian soil. Almost invariably, the word "terrorist" is carefully avoided and is conspicuously absent from their news. Rebels, fighters (even freedom-fighters), armed men etc, were the terms reserved even for the perpetrators one of the most gruesome (unspeakable actually) massacres in modern history -- of children and their mothers in Beslan, 2004. After that event, I find it impossible to buy into any of ideas/news/information/propaganda that may come from the same sources...

Well, he is a rebel leader, but he is also a terrorist, his organization engages in terrorism, so, yes, he should be called a terrorist. The same applies to organizations like Al Qaeda in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan. The Russian government views these organizations in such a manner, but nevertheless the double standard alluded to between Russia and the West's struggles with terrorists comes from both sides. Fellow commentators on this media venue as well as some parts of the venue itself seem to hold a double standard when it comes to judging the Chechnya conflict and Afghanistan. Russia might argue that Chechnya and Dagestan and what-not are different from Afghanistan because they are within Russia territory and NATO is a legally foreign force Afghanistan, but in each case we are trying to come up with an acceptable regional or national government to rule foreign peoples and gruesome horrors of war inflicted on the innocent and the guilty carried by us and the enemy are manifesting themselves as a consequence. The differences are largely cosmetic and meaningless. Even in terms of how we got to this point, in both cases a lot of it seems to be case of what goes around comes around. We both did bad stuff decades ago in these places, and now we have to clean up our own messes while hopefully not leaving intolerable new ones.

April 30, 2010, 19:53, American wrote > see his/her post In the context of Beslan massacre the American's comment is cynical at best or just pathological. Response of the western media is not a matter of terminology but basic humanity. I think that in the prolonged onslought and the incessant barrage of media brainwashing, especially in the USA, both reason and humanity were forced out of minds and hearts of most of their population. Unfortunately so -- because only 50 years ago that was a great nation, even admirable one. However, it seems that Pax Americana has seen the beginning of its own end. If you may be looking for its cuase I bet it won't be found in Iraq, or Afganistan, or Pakistan, or...

Doku Umarov, the architect of last month’s brutal attack on the Moscow Metro, is not on Washington’s annual list of terrorists because he is sponsored by Washington and CIA. If Washington includes him and his organisation on its annual list, then Washington and CIA will have to be included on the list as well, which will be against America’s interests. What excuse will Washington use then as a War on Terror? That is the only reason Doku Umarov is and his terrorist organisation is not on the list.

This is not news, Joanne W., it is the same as all governments - globally: selling the human being as though a danger to the world, when indeed the idea of occupation being intolerable represents 21st Century and in fact, the past 2 centuries plus are rife with the intolerable. Intolerable of human crimes against life or call it the insanity of debt, drugs, and therefore only one exit .. death. What are the words the Russian leadership use - moving forward - I believe ... .... a nuke chess play, since that, too, is no exit.

Joanne, For you and me and many others this is none issue. However, for millions of Americans and others in the West who read RT, do not know that the U.S and Great Britain support terrorism against Russia tacitly even Western leaders give lip service to common anti-terror cause with Russia. But this issue already generating important discussion. I do agree that this article is invasive and does not make the link between the U.S neocons and terrorism against the Russian Federation. Russia needs to stay in the course of hunting down terrorists and eradicating them while winning the hearts and the minds of loyal Caucuses Muslims who are true patriotic people that do not see contradiction between their love of their country and their religion. That is why there is no incentive for Russia to join the cynical anti-Muslim U.S war on terror but instead work in defending the security of its own borders and eliminating those who pose threat to the security of the Russian people including foreign elements who support terrorists in the North Caucuses region.

I hear in this article much of one man's opinion on this matter and yet little to no facts concerning the true heart of americans. At best the article is biased and needs to be reviewed by a better editorial team. If a person who makes these claims is so nieve to thinking that they can speak for over 300 million people and relate there comments, and actions to the whole group and not even have facts from a poll to back these up. I would say journalism at its dumbest has just occured. The reason why we are a democracy is because we have a voice of many. I support my country through the good and the bad. I hear in this article nothing but mindless chatter of issues they have attempted to turn to news. How many americans have been severely impacted by Moscow's recent terrorist attack, my family and many in my church family have prayed heavily and continue to pray heavily for not just the city of Moscow but the entire country of Russia. From Moscow to Chita. And for the record we are thankful for the news RT provides but are disappointed in who they are allowing to write for them.

Joanne W, Let's cut to chase and see what you know: "Media outlets of any relevance across western world have been practically in unison for long time when it comes to qualifying terrorist actions of terrorists on Russian soil. Almost invariably, the word "terrorist" is carefully avoided and is conspicuously absent from their news. Rebels, fighters (even freedom-fighters), armed men etc," Absolutely false. In a search I just found numerous articles from mainstream Western venues (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, etc) that used the word terrorism. I found a recent quote by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that used the word terrorism. There is, as this RT article suggests, to some extent a problem. But no, it is clear as day your making an extreme exaggeration of it that suggests you live in a bubble. "I think that in the prolonged onslought and the incessant barrage of media brainwashing, especially in the USA, both reason and humanity were forced out of minds and hearts of most of their population." I know many warm compassionate and rational people, and as with your other statement, what you are saying is a clearly false and ridiculous assertion of irrational extremism. In almost all cases both total cynicism and trust in nobility are each far from the truth as humanity is a mixed bag.

There is hope for a US "glasnost" if somebody is willing to make noise about Doku Umarov in the US House of Representatives. Let's see if the inquiry is allowed to proceed or is "hushed up". I expect the latter but hope for the former. There are some people in the CIA who might be a little embarrassed if Umarov starts talking about who funded him. How convenient for them if he dies in a shoot-out with the Russian military.

U.S Spud, I think you are missing the central point of the article and many of the comments left in this open blog discussion board. The article is about the U.S but it focused on the views of policymakers [i.e. legislators], media outlets, foreign policy regarding double standards they used in the way they frame and execute policies on war on terror. These decisions are made by selected people and not by 300M individuals. If you take the U.S media on Russia, by and large Russia is represented in hysterically negative ways . Thus, leading U.S media outlets and talks heads and media pundits almost always frame terrorism against Russia the product of Russia’s aggressive policies in the Caucuses. Ironically, the U.S media can never say anti-U.S policies in the Muslim world has something to do with aggressive U.S foreign policies and endless militarism.As for U.S citizens, they are basically good people but majority are sheltered from the rest of the world; U.S citizens by and large do not travel to Russia, Europe, Asia and Africa. When 300M Americans only 20% carry passport and majority see foreign trip as quick dash to Mexico and Canada [by using passport card, not a real passport]. As a result, it is easier for the corporate owned and consolidated U.S media to brainwash the population. The solution is long term but it can begin by giving every U.S citizen who want valid passport to have one. Hopefully some of them would be able to visit Russia to see for themselves that the Russians are ordinary people as well.

I just tried to search CNN - as advised by "American". Look eg. here http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/05/russia.ingushetia.attack/index.html You find the word "rebel" used 3 times and "terrorism" once - the latter in "is being investigated [by Russians] as an act of terrorism". Needles to say that this matches exactly what I have seen for years in other "western" press when it concerns Russia.

Global South, This is an oversimplification and an exaggeration. Right wing commentators and politicians in the US often take the line that Russia hasn't changed much since the days of the USSR in terms of its imperialistic intentions to acquire and dominate neighboring countries through military force, but liberals, like Barack Obama, tend to take a much more moderate approach and viewpoint towards Russia that wishes build trust and cooperation between our countries and which acknowledges that while Russia desires influence, not necessarily anything resembling Warsaw pact-like control, over surrounding territory, its will to do so through direct coercion is very limited and therefore is qualitatively different than it was during the Cold War. And finally, most Americans don't really have any firm opinion at all about Russia because most people don't know or think much about it or even about geopolitics in general. If we were to compare RT and Western media, one thing is pretty obvious, and this is that Russia much more obsessed about us than we are about Russia. 1/3 or more of all of RTs "top news" articles are about the West, while in the neighborhood of 1/30 of American headline articles are about Russia. I've learned much more from RT about how Russia views the West, and the US especially, than about what Russia is like internally. It seems as though you strive to define yourselves in relation to, in cooperation with, in antagonism towards the West at the expense of cultivating a Russian self-identity that is internally rather than externally driven. Perhaps the monolithic nature of Russia's internal politics is to blame for this; US politicians are constantly being conspicuously blamed by the other party for the US's own problems. In Russia, criticizing men with real power like Putin is untenable and on occasion even dangerous so it has to look abroad for controversy.

May 01, 2010, 08:58, American wrote > Joanne W, > Let's cut to chase and see what you know: > "Media outlets of any relevance across western world have been practically in unison for long time when it comes to qualifying terrorist actions of terrorists on Russian soil. Almost invariably, the word "terrorist" is carefully avoided and is conspicuously absent from their news. Rebels, fighters (even freedom-fighters), armed men etc," > Absolutely false. In a search I just found numerous articles from mainstream Western venues (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, etc) that used the word terrorism. I found a recent quote by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that used the word terrorism. As the title of the article says -- my little post hit someone's nerve. American: the Beslan tragedy happened almost six years ago -- check your sources better and you will see that what I said is true -- no even mention of the word terrorism in your media then, including the few you mention above, let alone characterizing of the crime as such. However, to save yourself time you might opt to trust me on this one and perhaps look at some facts about the event instead. Wikipedia article would be a good start followed by a few youtube videos. On the related point: what would your reaction be to the fact that just days after the massacre Vanessa Redgrave organized a press conference for Ahmed Zakayev a Chechen terrorist and a mass murderer (128 killed in a Moscow theatre) to voice his views on the Russian "repression"? Well, I suppose UK is a free country, she is a well known public figure, so the media dutifully obliged with a full coverage, and at the right moment...

I'm with Joanne W. This is a pointless story. He was not on the list because the list was in the final stages of being prepared when the attacks happened. And the same thing happens in Western media outlets in regards to the use of the word "terrorist." It's avoided frequently.

American, I do not think this is a matter of U.S right wing media pundits anti-Russian rhetoric alon. Instead, the United States ruling class have been supporting European fascist forces against the Soviets. Please see Philip Agree’s books about the Cold War and U.S support for fascist forces before, during and after WWII. Professor Agee, who passed away in 2008- was a professor of history and a former CIA Agent. Russia has no credible reason to trust the U.S “reset” until the U.S stops its endless global aggression. Russia has lot of resources coveted by U.S corporations and destabilising Russia by the U.S- often by proxy -will not end any time soon.

And Osama bin Laden is a rebel leader :/

Joanne W. "the Beslan tragedy" The sources I just mentioned called far more recent terrorist attacks in Russia terrorist attacks, which means even if your right, your argument is obsolete. But I will also answer this more specific charge by conducting a google search with a range date limited to late 2004. Tacking them up as I go, the following sources called Beslan a terrorist attack: The Guardian (UK), The Times (UK), ABC (Australia), CNN (US), Bloomberg (US), USA today (US), BBC (UK), PBS (US), CSMonitor (US), Washington Post (US), the New York Times (US)...even Fox news! I rest my case. Your dead wrong, and if you'd checked this for yourself would have known this. "Ahmed" I cannot claim to be an expert on his case, having never heard of him before you mentioned him. This is by no means thorough, but the following makes Moscow's claims about him seem highly suspect: they accused him of killing men who were alive, of cutting off the fingers of a man whose fingers were lost by frost bite years earlier than the alleged crime, of kidnapping a man who said he wasn't kidnapped, and of in opinion of the courts of Denmark and the UK giving insufficient evidence for any charge. Through out his career he repeatedly denounced extremist Islam and has spent much time during the past decade working for a peace settlements for the Chechyan conflict. On the other hand, he was once involved in the Chechnya rebel government and therein in military resistance to Russian rule. The UK court cleared him of that charge on the basis of his conduct being that of conventionally fighting a war. He claims Russia would and has tortured him. Some of the charges against him seem clearly chumped up; maybe he should be turned over to Russia, on the basis of clearly being a rebel if nothing else, but Russia's honesty in this case is suspect.

Global South, Philip Agree was a communist extremist who tried to ally himself with the KGB. I therefore from the start wouldn't trust him as a neutral enough source to reliably give honest information, objective portrayals, and wise analysis. Additionally, he was primarily a Cold War figure with primarily special knowledge of Cold War, rather than modern, US protocols. All the major powers in the Cold War were imperialistic, cruel, oppressive, and guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. On the one side were the totalitarian communist states and their conquered "satellites", and on the other was an alliance between capitalist democracies (free to varying but quite substantial extents) and authoritarian governments, many which were fascist in nature. Both sides used the other side to justify its own evil deeds. Modern US policy isn't as bad, though it is not without egregious flaws. However, typically, many people who criticize it play the age old trick of fools, which is to focus only on the negative consequences of whatever it is you don't like while ignoring the consequences of the alternatives and of their own favored policies, institutions, and philosophies. Saudi Arabia for instance is one of the most extremist Islamic countries in the world, it has 25% of the entire world's oil reserves, and if it weren't for the monarchy that is there it would be a chaotic mess and the global economy of exchange without which hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, would starve would be crippled. Until the terrorists procure WMDs they are an insubstantial and mostly just psychological threat, but arguably it is worth a vast amount of sacrifice, human and material, to prevent them from ever gaining WMDs. This may justify the defense of the government of Afghanistan and Pakistan against their common Taliban enemy. You may not agree with all of these decisions, but often they are tough ones to make for good reasons.

Back in the "Cold-War" times; someone fighting the communists was a freedom fighter and the same person to feed his family and being free, fighting the capitalists or their proxy was a terrorist. Nothing has changed, because, the imperialists' goal is still the same: Stealing all the natural resources hided in the huge last "Eldorado"; Russia, and imposing the "great American way of life"... When I comment and question certain leaders' incredulity, I am not published. Just, wait and see; then you will have the answer to know who is right. Sorry Future Generations; now humanity is governed by greedy creeps and you will pay for it...Sincerely... Jean-Claude Meslin