Post-siege Coverage

Forums Forums TV Newsroom Post-siege Coverage

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  thedude 13 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #18914 Reply

    #18915 Reply


    Does anybody else think the coverage post-siege is a bit anti-Russian? I’ve been watching for the last hour, and the only question that seems to be being asked is “what did the government do wrong?”, almost as if it was all their fault.

    I can’t help wondering if it’s the usual Western news’ Cold War throwback anti-Russian sentiment creeping in.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that when you’re dealing with a large siege involving hundreds of people and thousands of concerned relatives and soldiers etc on the outside that when it all goes pear-shaped there is going to be chaos and, when you’re dealing with large numbers of suicidal terrorists, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt and killed.

    If the same thing happened in Britain or America, I very much doubt we would handle it any better than the Russians did.

    But where has the condemnation of the terrorists been? One line of condemnation sandwiched between five or six lines of criticism of the Russian government’s handling of the atrocity. Where is the analysis of the Chechen conflict? Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen any on Sky.

    I only caught a bit of Rachel Amatt’s coverage during the siege, but to me it sounded like “oh, there’s an explosion”, “oh, there’s some gunfire” and “oh, there’s a journalist rather out of her depth”.

    And don’t even get me started on Tim Marshall. Totally unsympathetic and not missing any opportunity to have a go at the authorities.

    #18916 Reply

    Forum Member

    I’m 100 % sure that “we” would handle a situation such as this much, much better. Russians are extremely bad at handling these things. Proven by the theater siege and recent events.

    #18917 Reply


    The theatre siege and this most recent siege do not really have any Western equivalents (although I admit I’m not expert) in terms of the number of terrorists/hostages and the suicidal nature of the terrorists, so it’s a bit of a difficult comparison.

    Unless the terrorists were to give themselves up (unlikely), there is no way a siege with hundreds of hostages and dozens of well-armed suicidal terrorists was going to have a peaceful ending no matter who stormed the building.

    Yes, we have people like the SAS and Delta Force who are trained for such things but I’d be very surprised if the Russians didn’t have such people too, especially given the number of recent terrorist actions.

    It’s typical of our superior attitude that we might think that the troops who stormed the building are ill-trained conscripts, but with terrorists with their fingers on bomb detonators and are quite willing to use them, how well would anybody have done – and let’s not forget that as far as we know, the terrorists were the ones who started the shooting and caught the Russians slightly by surprise.

    If you want to compare Western efforts with something remotely similar to what the Russians have had to put up with (and we haven’t really had anything as bad that I can think of), what about the Waco siege? Complete farce from beginning to end, and that was against all the expertise and technology the Americans have at their disposal.

    #18918 Reply


    Actually I’ll take back what I said about there being no analysis of the Chechen conflict – I caught a good couple of chats a an hour or so ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
Reply To: Post-siege Coverage
Your information: