The story talks about 10 being identified and not all of the terrorists. Other news stories have indicated that several of the terrorists were Arab.

Again the conflict has nothing to do with being a mass murderer.

-Rudey

Right... fine... here is an editoral (partially refuting the whole "death cult" one by the New York Post) that discusses the issue of using the Belsan School Massacre to justify the "War on Terror's" direction and methods.

Using Beslan to defend war on terror
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116795

I agree with the thrust of the article, instead of simplifying the issue, that greater depth and understanding is needed in order to confront and win the "War on Terror".

Death cult of the New York Post? What are you talking about?

Again, Chechnya needs a solution but this is about brutal murderers who killed children. It's that simple. They are 2 issues and not 1.

-Rudey

Sorry New York Times - in an article you posted in another thread:

This is from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/o...7brooks.html?hp
Cult of Death
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 7, 2004

Yes two very different papers. The paper you posted is not even comparable to the NYPost let alone the NYTimes.

-Rudey

Nice... I see your standard response kicking in again... dismiss or insult the source of opinions you don't agree with.

The first article was actually from the Associated Press while the second was an op-ed as I stated. Oh and for your edification the NY Times uses AP stories too....

Umm no, one paper can't be better than another? I guess it's easier to hide the truth by saying someone is insulting you when in fact they're showing you're wrong and your paper isn't worth much.

And yes I understand that the NY Times uses AP stories. It uses other sources as well but AP and Reuters are the most prominent. David Brooks writes for the Times and not for AP.

Regardless this was an issue of brutal and bloody murder of innocent school children. Nothing else although some may try and convince others of it.

-Rudey

The Star is well respected, I'd ask you to post something showing otherwise.

eta: I had "extremely" in there, but that probably isn't true.

I'm sure it is in Canada if you're looking for a Canadian news source.

-Rudey

What is that supposed to mean?

If you're in Canada and want to read a Canadian publication that gets some respect, the Toronto Star might be worth your time.

-Rudey

Then why would you discard any information that comes from one? (re: the "your paper isn't worth much")

I'm just really sick of you discarding of any information that you don't agree with. If the Star isn't worth much, prove it. Otherwise, accept what it has to say. You don't have to agree with the Op-Ed piece, but it doesn't mean the whole paper is worthless.

It's not the New York Times. It's not the Wall Street Journal. It's not the New Republic or the Economist. It's not even Le Monde. The New York Times is larger and is distributed throughout the world, it has original stories with very influential global leaders that others can't get because of its resources. You are comparing a filet to a hamburger and saying the hamburger is just as good, or Devry to Harvard.

You can be sick of whatever I have to say. I discard what isn't right. You even got sick when we talked about statistics probably. I am happy I have the influence to make you sick darling.

-Rudey