Talk:Beslan school siege/Archive 3

message: I just saw [this article], and wondered if somebody would be able to look into whether or not it was true...if it is, it certainly helps explain why this particular school was chosen as the target.  Sherurcij 09:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New information?

message: === Demands ===	 	=== Demands ===
The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have requested the presence of the following people at various times, to conduct negotiations
or
The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have at first made the following demands
			
Presence of the following people in the school:
* Aleksander Dzasokhov, president of North Ossetia,
* Murat Ziazikov, president of Ingushetia,
* Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya (other reports name presidential advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, or Mukharbek Aushev, Duma member representing Ingushetia),
* Vladimir Rushailo, Executive Secretary for the Commonwealth of Independent States.''
It seems to me that we need the clarity of the first one, or some kind of compromise...since the reverted-back-to wording makes it sound like the kidnappers just said "Gather us a bunch of presidents in our booby-trapped school to kill" which wasn't the case.  It is quite usual for hostage-takers to demand that a president conduct negotiations themself. [User:Sherurcij|Sherurcij]] 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My Portuguese (?) is beyond poor, but I'm catching Why, why, if these people...their disgrace and destruction (of peace?)...not even human...sentimentality...new...in the world. and guessing that it's not going to fall under NPOV.  If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have requested the presence of the following people at various times, to conduct negotiations
or
The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have at first made the following demands
			
Presence of the following people in the school:
* Aleksander Dzasokhov, president of North Ossetia,
* Murat Ziazikov, president of Ingushetia,
* Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya (other reports name presidential advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, or Mukharbek Aushev, Duma member representing Ingushetia),
* Vladimir Rushailo, Executive Secretary for the Commonwealth of Independent States.''
It seems to me that we need the clarity of the first one, or some kind of compromise...since the reverted-back-to wording makes it sound like the kidnappers just said "Gather us a bunch of presidents in our booby-trapped school to kill" which wasn't the case.  It is quite usual for hostage-takers to demand that a president conduct negotiations themself. [User:Sherurcij|Sherurcij]] 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My Portuguese (?) is beyond poor, but I'm catching Why, why, if these people...their disgrace and destruction (of peace?)...not even human...sentimentality...new...in the world. and guessing that it's not going to fall under NPOV.  If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demands ===	 	=== Demands 

message: The "Investigations" chapter is probably the most disorganized part of this article, that could most benefit from a good cleanup, if somebody could do that, much appreciated :) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 04:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: It was later revealed that the terrorists had killed twenty adult male hostages and thrown their bodies out of the building that day.[citation needed]
I saw a documentary last night narrated by Julia Roberts in which a video camera being used by one of the terrorists, peeked out a window ledge  to the ground, showing the bodies of about 10-20 naked and half-naked men, which would seem to confirm that statement. Although, I'm not sure how I could use the documentary as a source, but it was called Three Days in September. Morhange 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement Needed Citation 

message: This article was started during the event, before the final outcome was known.  The name Beslan school hostage crisis might have been appropriate then.  Now we all know what happened.  It was a massacre.  Sure, maybe the Russian government could have handled things differently, but the fact remains that the majority of the vicims died at the hands of terrorists, who had no right to take them hostage in the first place.  Had U.S. forces taken 1300 children and parents hostage in a school in Iraq, and the end result was the same, this article would already be titled "Massacre."  But I guess when "oppressed" minorities commit this type of violence, there is a tendency to downplay things.  A crisis is when a school gets underfunded or starts on fire.  A massacre is when armed thugs walk into a building and kill innocent children.  See the difference?  
Do a google search.  Massacre is the most common title other sources give to this incident.  The wiki article (or derivatives of it on other sites), plus contemporary accounts before the final outcome was known account for a good number of the sources that can be found call this the "Beslan school hostage crisis."  It is time for a change.  This needs to be called what it is, The "Beslan Massacre." or "Beslan School Massacre" Give Peace A Chance 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody has voiced an objection, I'm moving it.  Give Peace A Chance 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you cannot move an article just because nobody has replied to your talk page comments within a day of you posting them. I've subsequently moved the page back. The event took place over several days, and included a hostagetaking, issuing demands for specific people to be brought to the school, a standoff, a massacre, crossfire, militants escaping, special forces and civilians hunting them down, there is a lot more than just a massacre, this article is about the entire crisis. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Peace, massacre is the most common term for this action, not crisis.  Similiar events such as November 1997 Luxor massacre have similiar titles. Max The Dog 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even ignoring POV issues with "massacre", the term fits Luxor much more closely because the "bad guys" ran into a place and killed as many people as they could, that was it.  In Beslan, they actually *took them hostage* and tried to negotiate their demands, the "massacre" itself (regardless of whether the Russian forces were responsible or not) was a very brief incident at the very end of the stand-off.  This article is about the entire incident, not just the firefight on the last day. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: YOu mean now that it's clear that the Security Forces likely started the bloodbath on their own?  This was a hostagetaking that went terribly wrong - we don't know whose fault it is that things exploded, and we know equal amounts of innocents were hit by Russian bullets as were hit by the hostagetakers...this isn't the definition of a massacre, it's the definition of a crisis. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to move article

message: There are two cites, and two eye witnesses who claim it did take places, however the case is disputed, so it should not be stated as a fact. But of course it should be included that some survivors “allege” it happed. Simply to claim that it is “UNTRUE” is not a serious argument (and I note that you gladly include cites to obvious Jihadist underground sites like kavcenter, but not UK newspaper). In any case there are another cite beyond the one you dislike.
Don’t delete section before a consensus has been reached here. Rune X2 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's NOT a "UK newspaper." It's UK a notorious (fake Iraq abuse photos!) UK tabloid. Look, The Daily Mirror. Citing Wikipedia: "In its traditional sense, tabloids tend to emphasise sensational stories and are reportedly prone to create their news if they feel that the subjects cannot, or will not, sue for libel. In this respect, much of the content of the tabloid press could be said to fall into the category of junk food news." The claim is untrue, totally, absolutelly, and it goes out. --HanzoHattori 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be of the misunderstanding that if you state something as true, without anything but your insistence, it is naturally so. And you seem to completely refuse to acknowledge that there are two cites. There’s no doubt that a number of hostages though some of the girls were raped, and the article must reflect this. I’m afraid it’ll stay. At least until we get some kind of argument from you besides the “I say so” kind, and preferable some input from some other wikipedians and some kind of consensus. Rune X2 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the TOTALLY FAKE "Iraq abuse" photos should be cited too, in Abu Ghraib article, as a real events - look it was in "an UK paper" (notorious tabloid)? No, this is just laughable. The sensationalist news of "rapes" were totally unfounded - go and see ANY of the serious Beslan analyses, summary reports, books or movies, there were lots of these. Heck, even the official government story, or the Kulayev trial reports. Now, from the REAL AND IMPORTANT things: the terrorists shot two tapes (no, not a kiddy pr0n). One, which was founded long time later in wreckage by a local(!), is quite famous. The other was sent outside and adressed to Putin; it was officially claimed "blank" by the government, but there they recorded their demands. Overally, there was much more of mediation than the "Roshal" debacle, or even the entry of Aushev. And many, many other things. --HanzoHattori 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding allegation of sexual impropriety  

message: Why don’t you read the cites before stating something as "VERY impropable". The vodka report is right testified by one of the survivors
Beslan Children Testify: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=15341
Likewise the story on eating plants and flowers are widely reported. That you haven't heard of it before is no reason to delete it. They are needed, like them drinking urine, to given an impression of what was taken place in the room. The one with the bayonet, is also cited there. But I let it go as it seems to have only one source. Rune X2 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flashnews: fundamentalist Muslims don't drink vodka (unless stories of some of hostages who claimed there were "smoking Slavs" who had dissapeared before day3 were true). If you remember the Moscow siege, they "found" a strangely erect bottle of cologne  next to bloodied body of Barayev, and showed it on TV. Idiotic propaganda, but quite usual in Russia (like the claims a Kuwaiti "al-Qaeda man" had a male Chechen lover - it was even on wiki, complete with the MVD website link). Later, they channged their version - one of commandos blaced the bottle on Barayev "as a joke". It's very, very typical. Are you sure this boy is even real? The only hostage executed in gym was a man on the morning of day one. His name was Ruslan Betrozov - see? --HanzoHattori 13:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, well I suppose some of them weren’t so fundamentalist then. In any case, the whole Islamic angle has been downplayed throughout the article. Do you suggest we focus more on the Islamic angle? So you believe the FSU forced the boy to tell about the vodka? Personally I find it unlikely, but in any case, we don’t have to speculate too much on it, as the article merely states that "one boy said …" – then the reader can make up his own mind weather he considers it trustworthy. But perhaps you want to guard it more, by adding the claim seems to run counter the the attackers Islamic religion? Rune X2 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more logic problems. For starters, did you ever drink vodka? Do you think it makes people less thirsty?  Going next, how about this thing with the kids digging it up from a terrorist's backpack - what else they were doing, playing with their captors' guns? The story is just plain stupid. I wouldn't be surprisided if one who invented this was drinking heavily himself. --HanzoHattori 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vodka and plants 

message: Instead of sheer idiocy in style of "eating plants" or unfounded sensationalist rumours of bayonetted childred etc, how about some REAL actual events? How about, for example, detailing real executions? We have two survivors and their stories, one of which cheated death three times (the accidental blast - which is mentioned only later, shootings, and then they let him live upon discovering still alive). Or the former army sapper guy who had disconnected a major bomb (and so it didn't explode). Or the story of woman who was proposed to take the unexploded belt of one of females. Lots of stuff, not a stupid stories of "people eating uneatable flowers" (try yourself - what, can't you?). Or just leave as it is, only "most important things" with not going into details (especially if much of what happened on day 3 is still uncertain, because of chaos and lies). --HanzoHattori 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "idiocy" of "eating plants" is widely reported (and cited – read them!) and not really a controversial issue at all (except by you for some reason) – and not I’d prefer not to myself, like I‘d prefer not to drink "undrinkable" urine, etc. The paragraph is needed, just as the urine fact, as background information on the conditions inside the gym. But I agree the article in many ways seems unstructured and forced into an existing mould that perhaps is not ideally for the subject, and overall could do for some better organisation. The guy (from the Esquire article) who cheated death? Sure if you can work it in it would be a nice addition, though I don’t necessary see how it adds anything general to understanding the incident – same with the woman who (according to same article) was propose to act as Shahika in exchange for releasing her family, if you can work it in good idea. Rune X2 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The urine is drinkable alright (in small amounts). And yes, drinking one's urine is common in extreme situations (and also widely reported in Beslan - because this happened). On the other hands, flowers are radically different. Do you often hear about starving people in wild, for example, eating random flowers to survive? Of course not, they look for a strawberries or bugs and slugs, etc. Just a little logic, is this that hard? The "lucky" man was Karen Mdinaradze, and the one who escaped was Aslan Kudzayev. But I'm leaving this article as it is since now, in part because of your obstructions. Maybe one important thing - the very same school was a concentraton/hostage camp for the Ingush during the 1992 ethnic conflict (it was even reported in official Russian media at the time, when an Ossetian militia stopped a federal detachment from reaching the site). Several hundred Ingush are still "missing" from this conflict (and tens of thousands remain refugees, which is a huge number there). No idea if they chose it because of it or by chance, I think they gave no indication they knew. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this article better 

message: It's very misleading on one aspect. Somebody worked hard (with a Russian and UK tabloids and some wild rumors not repeated anymore) to change an Islamist/Nationalist terrorist group into a band of vodka-drinking, drug-addicted robbers-pedophiles who lure children with sweets to molest them, at least when they're not busy bayonetting them or repeatedly stabbing them with knives. Which is wrong and completely false, to the extent it's even nowhere in the official government versions (which are conflicting each other on many other accounts, btw), but for whatever reasons it's creating this certain image anyway.
Also for the drugs (no, not "withdrawal"), they were reportedly using the Russian combat drug, known as VIL, "used only by the GRU" (oh, not anymore). Thanks to this some still fought, despite receiving multiple and even an otherwise fatal wounds. (Or an "American drug" according to Torshin the clown: We suspect that this was a combat narcotic, invented by the Americans as early as 1943. By the way, the use of this narcotic in Beslan is one more reason to assume the possible participation of foreign special services in preparation for that act of terror. He and the "unflamable flamethrowers" Shepel, they should team-up for their own TV show.)
I don't even know about the rest of the article, because I honestly just gave up. One thing for sure, it's fairly bad constructed. But the children-molestation-by-addicts thing for start is just too much. {{User:HanzoHattori]]
:It's upsetting to hear that you also "gave up", since I pretty much "gave up" trying to hold this article together when RuneX2 started making rather...'drastic' changes.  I promised myself I'd wait till he had run out of steam, and then bring consensus to get rid of a lot of his stuff, but obviously it's still ongoing months later. The article used to have the potential to look for Featured status, but nowadays it reads like a single editor's work, rather than a neutral collaboration of consensus.  As you said, reading the entire article once-through, you get a pretty odd picture of the incident, if you knew nothing about it already.  You could walk away not knowing they were Chechyans, but never forgetting that they raped little girls...which is itself doubtful at best.  Unlike the problems that arose with 9/11 and stuff though, I can't really picture a alternate Beslan theories article, I mean, everything is alternate, there's not even an official "government" version - there's a lot of ill-founded media hype, and even more "Putin is a crazy mofo who just shoots anyone and everyone" or "Islamic bastards with no respect for human life" propaganda.  I'd really love to see three or four active Wikipedians sit down and hash out the article, possibly even over IRC one afternoon, to help it become more neutral, and decide what is/isn't relevant.  Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly  #1 wrong thing with this article 

message: Ok that last comment is probably the embodiment of stupidity.
How can you rationalize w/ someone who equates killing 340+ civillians (including 186 children) w/ the "Russian breach of human rights in Chechnya?" Chechnya is the size of Connecticut. It should have been blown off the map a long time ago. 
Moving forward, what the heck is a "hostage-taker?" Can we NOT say terrorist?
Terrorist: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion 
Hostage-taker: not in the dictionary.
Any thoughts?
This article needs to be deleted & re-written!
: Hostage-taker / terrorist again again. I have reverted a number of "terrorist" -> "hostage-taker" changes by Sherurcij. The incident has widely been accepted as a terrorist attack (by the UN, Russia, EU, US, Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, etc.) which makes terrorist the correct description of the people who perpetrated it. The mastermind even described himself as a terrorist. In addition we can take the 9/11 article as a template on usage being one of the most deeply edited articles on Wikipedia, and this article describes the 9/11 perpetrators as terrorists. Just because there are fewer Russian minded than US minded editors we shouldn't accept a different yardstick here. Rune X2 09:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hostage-Taker???

message: A report entitled Beslan: The Hostages' Truth compiled by Yuriy
Savelev, a State Duma deputy and member of the parliamentary
commission investigating the terrorist attack, was published today
on the Pravda Beslana (Beslan's Truth) web site
. This report, the "special opinion" which other
investigators did not agree with, is practically the only voice of
reason on the parliamentary commission, as the official version of
events directly contradicts not only the evidence of the hostages
and witnesses, but even the laws of physics and explosives.
Yuriy Petrovich Savelev is a doctor of technical sciences, a highly
qualified expert on the physics of combustion and explosions, a
professor and former rector of St Petersburg's Institute of Military
Mechanics, the only specialist of his kind on the commission.
In May-June this year Savelev familiarised other members of the
parliamentary commission and a range of experts with his report.
Making practically no substantial objections, they described his
conclusions as "deliberate falsification of the data"
and "speculation". The chairman of the commission, A. Torshin,
accused Savelev of  "playing political games". The reaction to the
report can be easily explained: Savelev not only completely destroys
the official version of the terrorist attack in Beslan (the version
of the Prosecutor's Office which was repeated by A. Torshin in his
December 2005 report), but also proves the terrible truth: the
hostages died not through the fault of the terrorists, but through
the fault of the HQ's actions. Not simply the actions but the
criminal order given by one of the HQ's FSB generals.
Yuriy Savelev's report is voluminous, packed with evidence,
calculations, formulas and photographic proof. The author pays a lot
of attention to the testimonies of the surviving hostages, witnesses
and eyewitnesses. These testimonies were given in open court during
the trial of Nurpashi Kulayev at the Supreme Court of the Republic
of North Ossetia-Alania. Stenographic records of the trial, which
were published quickly on the www.pravdabeslana.ru web site, allowed
any interested party to delve into the circumstances of events in
Beslan. The details repeated by the former hostages provided
material to understand the events of 1-3 September 2004 and
especially the events that set in motion the storming of the school
on 3 September. Moreover, Savelev based his report on the large
archive of photographic and video material from the scene of the
tragedy which was put together with the help of reporters who worked
in Beslan. It is not easy to paraphrase the report either in terms
of its scope or its base of scientific evidence, so I will restrict
myself in this article to just the main conclusions.
The first part of the report is devoted to the circumstances
surrounding the explosions in the school sports hall, which were
heard after 13.00 on 3 September 2004 and after which the "enforced
storming" began. The official version runs: "The unidentified
terrorists activated explosive devices rigged up in the school
sports hall." The investigation proceeded from this version,
conducting expert analyses in explosives and fires. Savelev pays a
great deal of attention in his report to criticism of these
analyses. Taking as a basis the repeated evidence of the hostages,
the investigation of the nature and timing of the destruction in the
sports hall, the used casings from single-shot weapons, which were
found by local residents and handed in to the prosecutor's office,
and photographic records and using formulas to calculate the
strength of the explosions, the author of the report draws his
conclusions. The first explosion in the sports hall, packed with
weak hostages, was the result of a shot from an RPO-A (rocket-
propelled infantry flame-thrower with a thermobaric action, in other
words a Shmel flame-thrower) from the five-storey House No 37 in
School Lane. The shot was fired at 13.03 into the northeast corner
of the attic space of the sports hall, which adjoins the gym. As the
FSB did not reply to the official enquiry of the parliamentary
commission, the author admits that in this case an RPO-A might not
have been used, but a TBG-7V grenade (RPG-7V1 grenade thrower), RShG-
2 (rocket-propelled assault grenade) or an MPO-A (although at that
time this type of weapon might not yet have been in the armoury of
the Russian Federation FSB's special centre). As the shot was made
by a thermobaric grenade with a simplified charge, then it is likely
that a weapon of the types mentioned with similar specifications was
used.
The second explosion in the sports hall, which was heard 22 seconds
later, was caused by a high explosive splinter grenade, with an
equivalent of 6.1 kg of TNT, fired from an RShG-1 grenade thrower in
the five-storey House No 41 in School Lane. The shot destroyed the
wall beneath the northern window's sill, close to the western wall
of the sports hall.
It is important to note that a significant number of the explosive
devices rigged up by the fighters in the sports hall did not
explode, while some of them did explode as a result of the raging
fire. A large number of the hostages in the sports hall died
precisely as a result of the first two explosions. Some of the
survivors managed to run out of the sports hall, while after the
explosions others were taken by the fighters into the school's
canteen, assembly hall and southern wing. The fighters moved the
people because a fire had started in the sports hall and had taken
hold very quickly. The fire in the sports hall started as a result
of the first shot, practically at 13.05, as the school's attic area,
ceiling rafters and lagging had begun to burn where the thermobaric
grenade fell. The burning rafters and lagging fell onto the wounded,
but still living, hostages. The order of the head of the operational
HQ, FSB Maj-Gen V.A. Andreyev, to extinguish the fire came at 15.10,
the first water at 15.28, that is, two and a half hours after the
start of the fire. In this time all the hostages who remained in the
sports hall were burnt. Helpless and wounded, they were burnt alive.
A better fate did not await those who were moved from the sports
hall to other parts of the school. All parts of the school except
for the sports hall came under fire from outside from Shmel flame
throwers, RPG-26 and RShG-2 grenade throwers, other weapons and also
from tanks. Yuriy Savelev has calculated from the investigation's
official documents and forensic reports that approximately 300 to
310 hostages were taken from the sports hall to other parts of the
school and that approximately 106 to 110 of them died.
The report contains many other convincing expositions and
conclusions. I have mentioned only the basic ones. The main
conclusion is: the storming of the school in Beslan was engineered
(begun) by the use of weapons by the Russian special services,
specifically the team from the operational HQ. However, the storming
was presented to us as "enforced", that is, begun after "the
fighters blew up the sports hall". Savelev proves in his report that
this is not true.
Why did events turn out this way? What was the logic and what were
the circumstances that made the HQ fire several times into the
sports hall and then begin the assault? I have been asking myself
this question for a long time. This is my theory. First, it has to
be taken into account that there were in fact two "operational
headquarters": one, termed by convention "the power-wielding
structures or heavies", which included the federal FSB, and the
other "civilian", which included the leaders of the republic,
deputies, and also regional, Ossetian heavies of a lower rank. From
1 September the "heavies" HQ was preparing the assault, while
the "civilian" HQ was looking for a peaceful resolution of the
situation through negotiations. In many ways the "heavies"
restricted the actions of the "civilians" (in particular in their
attempts to negotiate with the fighters) and also took pains to
assure everyone that "there will be no storming".
From the very beginning the local population and relatives of the
hostages in the school were very afraid of an assault by force.
Representatives of the "civilian HQ" went out to meet people and
assure them that "there will be no storming". But they were not
really believed: the degree of mistrust of officialdom was
outstripped by the lies of the HQ and mass media (especially the
federal TV channels) about the number of hostages – all three days
it was reported that there were 354 of them, although by the
afternoon of 1 September the number was known to be "more than
1,000" (members of the HQ - the Russian Federation president's
deputy press secretary, Dmitriy Peskov, and the deputy director of
the "Vesti"("News") department for information and the press, Pyotr
Vasilyev - "filtered" the information for the media). Ossetian men
literally formed a living ring around the school in order to prevent
an attack by the military. They were armed with whatever they could
find, even with rare weapons from the Second World War.
But while the "civilian" HQ was thinking about ways of holding
negotiations, the "heavies" were preparing to storm the school. It
should be noted that the "civilian" HQ even achieved some success in
their work – agreement was reached on the arrival of Maskhadov whom
they promised to let into the school. He was guaranteed a corridor
and airfield. An hour after these agreements were reached, the storm
of the school began.
The "heavies" HQ faced a "difficult" task: how can they storm the
school if local residents will see this straightaway and get in the
way of the work of the special units? The decision was taken then:
1. to engineer the assault; 2. to make it look as though the
fighters themselves blew up the sports hall; 3. to this end to fire
several times into the sports hall (into the attic, under the hall's
window and into the window); 4. to begin the assault with special
forces; 5. to distract the attention of the fighters before firing
into the sports hall (it had been agreed that forces from the
Emergencies Ministry would collect bodies thrown out of the school
window). This was the plan. This was the chronology: the Emergencies
Ministry drives up to collect the bodies, at 13.03 explosions are
heard in the sports hall, special forces begin "the enforced
storming". The local population does not get in the way of the
troops and themselves rush to drag the hostages out of the sports
hall.
I am sure that only a few people knew the details of this operation.
I am sure that this operation was devised by the FSB. Most likely
the generals knew about this operation – at that time they were
deputy FSB directors V. Pronichev, V. Anisimov and A. Tikhonov who
were in Beslan and leading the "heavies" HQ. And of course the
operation was agreed with President Putin, perhaps without the
details, but in principle: "A storming and no negotiations". A
source in the presidential administration reported that President
Putin took the decision in principle to storm the Beslan school at
roughly midday on 1 September 2004. History does not forget such
decisions.
--HanzoHattori 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today released a 2 years work of Beslan commission. Mieciu, you better read it before blame security services (17 of professionals died, more than 30 wounded - never we had this before in special securiry services). This tells us that the situation was not easy to resolve. It's not a just chess game, it's not always easy (just look at the history or top world hostage-takings). Alexandre Koriakine 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savelev report (the most probable version of the events of September 3) 

message: I proof read the article and made some minor changes.
I think the article can get a better rating if
*Some sections are moved to another article and linked to this one, like the list of the participants. It is too long.
*The edit warring on if the they are "separatists" or "terrorists," "right or wrong" is somehow value-laden. Per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism "separatists" seems to be a better choice to me. That wont diminish in any way what has happened, and how big a 'tragedy' it was. The participants' identities are not much of an issue because they were there for Chechen separatist cause. The whole Islamic rhetoric has simply been adopted to receive money and support.
*Beslan Massacre could be a better description of what had happened there.
regards. cs 13:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggest against personal attacks.  Besides, WP policies do not allow articles become "soapboxes", or political manifests.  I  find it useful that some can argue and that they are esteemed editors.  I recognize that not putting words "muslim" and "terrorist" together changes the editorial angle, and I appreciate that.  The accuracy of the article does not suffer from this distancing.  ilgiz 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof read 

message: Someone would mention the Orthodox Church's plans to build the temple on the site (protested by locals who want this left how it's now). --HanzoHattori 13:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church controversy