Like I said before, the men who carry out the attacks will not recicieve payment (whether thay are mercs or not) until they provide proof of the attack. They could just be chechen farmers or other guys not necessarily soldiers that carry out the attacks for an extra buck. They could be soldiers, they could be mercs. All it said is that they do not get paid until proof is provided. I don't understand all the specualtion! They could use it as propaganda, but that would entail showing it to large numbers of people, as is the nature of propaganda. It could just be the guy wants it chronicled so he can show his kids (if he lives that long).
Wolf, no one ever said they are just a group of mercs, but mercenaries are a favorite choice of soldier for both sides. It does not mean they are ALL mercs, but they are definitely present! In case you STILL don't believe me:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/chechnya/Stor ... 60,00.htmlread the third paragraph, evidence of mercs.
http://www.rense.com/general31/chch.htmconsider the source, but more leading to the fact that mercs are very present on that battlefield.
http://emperors-clothes.com/cos/chechen.htmAnd you guys think I make this stuff up
Pancho, I wrote my English Humanities Thesis paper about media bias in the middle east conflict. There is so much of it, I decided to take my news from no less than three sources before deciding what to believe. You would be surprised (or perhaps not) by the ammount of biased information coming our way from such "reliable" news sources such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. A conspiracy theorist I am not, but be skeptical before you believe what is handed to you by the media.
