There have been many words written and spoken about the hideous mass murder in Beslan, and, as is the way of these things, most of them have generated considerably more heat than light. From the "yes, but what about..." morons to the tub thumping armchair warriors who seem to think they have a monopoly on outrage, and then on to the politicians like Jack Straw who mouth their platitudes while desperately thinking of ways to avoid explaining their hypocritical positions, few have come out with any credit.

I said below I couldn't begin to blog about it, and I have thought about leaving it at that. I would have done, too, if the various reactions had been less strange. And some of them have been bloody strange, to say the least. Why is it, for example, that whenever a terrorist outrage occurs, the response from some quarters is so dully predictable? A mealy mouthed reference to the horror, followed by, "But what about the atrocities perpetuated by..." I don't subscribe for a moment to the armchair warmongers' view that such people are demented apologists for terror, little better than the terrorists themselves, but there is a definite shortage of common decency in those reactions which invite such descriptions. And nothing whatsoever is gained by expressing those views at those times. Do they believe that, for instance, the thousands upon thousands of Chechens affected by Putin's vile policies who do not murder little children, indeed, who feel as sickened by Beslan as everybody else, welcome these comments? Do they want their own suffering portrayed as mere contextualisation for different horrors, or worse still, as cheap debating points? I think not.

If this over contextualisation baffles, then Harry's invocation of a former time stands as equally wierd. Just what is he suggesting here? That we make common cause with Putin, a man whose record suggests almost as callous a disregard for innocent life as the terrorists themselves? What are we to make of this:

There are some who suggest we can turn away from the world and simply hope that nothing will ever happen to us. Perhaps it could be possible. Perhaps, despite all the lessons of history to the contrary, we could hope that our enemy will leave us alone if we leave them free to act. But even if we ignored that history and took that step it would involve turning our backs on millions and leaving them to face the very real threat of being forced to live with oppression, terror and death.

In the context of Beslan, does this mean we should support Putin's policies in Chechnya? Does the slaughter of innocents in Beslan mean we should support the slaughterer of innocents elsewhere? In certain circles, I believe this is exactly what is required of us. The Times editorial, I think it was, said as much on the day after the event. "We must support President Putin." Why? Why is it seemingly impossible to condemn both sets of murderous bastards? Are not the Chechens who live with oppression, terror and death, not worthy of our concern, too? Or are they exempt on the grounds that evil people do atrocious things ostensibly in their name?

It all comes down, in the end, to our old friend, Realpolitik. When Jack Straw says it would be almost tasteless and it is disrespectful to the dead and the dying and their relatives to discuss the future of Chechnya at this time, what he is really saying is don't look too closely at our record on this because it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, morally speaking.

In that former time invoked by Harry, we had to cosy up to Stalin in order to defeat Hitler, now, it seems, we must choke back our bile and cosy up to Putin, because his enemy is ours. And Bush's, and the whole free world's as well.

It's a view, and one not totally without merit. But there's no moral high ground that comes with it, no matter how much the armchair warriors would like to convince us, and themselves, that there is.