Breaking - Shooting and Explosion at Concert Hall in Moscow

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975265#Comment_121975265

To use an example, one terror attack amounts to the attack of the bridge between Crimea and Ukraine. That amounts to targeting key infrastructure and isn't outlandish for a war. Meanwhile the Russians have the likes of Bucha and attacks on hospitals behind them. Have you ever raised a word of concern about such attacks? Or the kidnapping of children by the Russians? This is all pretty relevant if you're happy to label an attack on a bridge as terrorism. (Technically Ukraine's infrastructure that the Russians have stolen btw)

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975258#Comment_121975258

The head of the SBU gave an interview where he gloatingly admitted to the terrorist attacks. That is about as strong as a case gets.

To be clear - I would think Russia knows there is zero chance of Ukraine extraditing him. It works to their advantage. They initially entered Ukraine on the pretext of collective self defence of the Donbass republics. That gives them room to go so far. If Ukraine doubles down on the terrorist activities and harbours the SBU (like the Taliban and Bin Laden) Russia can explain to China, India and the "global majority" that Ukraine is a rogue state, a state sponsor of terrorism and Russia cant be expected to tolerate this regime so they have to overthrow it by force. Whatever anyone else might think, the "global majority" will likely accept that. So Russia sending this complaint, and Ukraine rejecting it is probably part of the plan.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975265#Comment_121975265

Translation: You're not interested in points which discredit your claims so you respond with some vague nonsense. Whether you are "interested" or not is irrelevent. Your claims have been discredited either way.

Adding another comparison with a totally different type of incident.

If you think this is a proper / independent investigation by Russia into these attacks I have a bridge to sell you.

You mean like the previous independent and proper Russian investigations into the deaths of their civilians, such as all those mysterious accidents involving stairs and windows?

Or how about the blowing up of the apartment buildings in 1999 as a pretext for renewing the war in Chechnya? An attack which had the hallmarks of FSB involvement down to the explosives used.

There's relevant context there, both to the types of investigations we can expect from Russia and the type of conduct their security services are capable of against their own citizens.

You've already owned up to this being part of a Russian agenda, not based on evidence currently available, so that they can spin it as:

I would think Russia knows there is zero chance of Ukraine extraditing him. It works to their advantage. 

So Russia, after the deaths of civilians, is more interested in how they can work this to their advantage, rather than identify the real culprits to protect their civilians against further attacks.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975288#Comment_121975288

The bridge attacks (Russia built that bridge by the way - hence the Ukrainian obsession with it) are relevant. The various missile and drone attacks are arguably valid military strikes. I say arguably because its a bridge used by civilians, and any valid strike would have to demonstrate a clear military benefit that justifies the civilian deaths/suffering. That's difficult, because the Ukrainian obsession with the bridge is due to its symbolic value, not its military value. Even Budanov recently admitted that the Russians do not use the bridge for military purposes.

But the Ukrainian truck bombing of the bridge, where they placed explosives in a civilian truck and had it driven by an unwitting civilian, and then remotely detonated the bomb, killing the driver and surrounding civilians is definitely terrorism.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975358#Comment_121975358

The real culprit for previous terrorist attacks (i.e. excluding the Moscow attacks) is the SBU. The head of the SBU admitted it. It isn't really a matter of dispute. Hence why the Russians are requesting his extradition.

As for the recent Moscow attack, Russia is clearly interested in determining the real culprits, all the back to the origin of the plot. Hence the investigation is ongoing.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975400#Comment_121975400

The bridge is considered a major supply route for Russia...

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975428#Comment_121975428

Multiple statements without foundation.

The previous attacks were not terrorist attacks - they were either assassinations of specific target or commando type attack on a military target. They were not focused on killing as many civilians as possible. Doesn't matter how many times you state it without foundation, it is still Russian propaganda.

I'll remind you of the points your reply ignores:

Or how about the blowing up of the apartment buildings in 1999 as a pretext for renewing the war in Chechnya? An attack which had the hallmarks of FSB involvement down to the explosives used. There's relevant context there, both to the types of investigations we can expect from Russia and the type of conduct their security services are capable of against their own citizens.

"Russia is clearly interested in determining the real culprits" - again, said with zero foundation. They may be interested in it, but that doesn't mean it is what will be disseminated publicly - as is established by the previous incidents. What if the real culprits are a faction in the FSB? What if ISIS-K were able to attack because of FSB complicity?

We also remember Russian involvement in the downing of civilian airliner MH17. Whatever "proper" internal investigation was carried out, all we got in public was Russian lies and disinformation.

Anybody who expects a proper, independent investigation by Russia into this and for those results to be made public - even if it exonerates Ukraine or pins blame on FSB - clearly hasn't been paying attention to Russian actions under Putin.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975479#Comment_121975479

In your opinion. You can have some convoluted definition of terrorism which amounts to "It's okay when my team does it but its evil when the other team does it", but I'll stick to a rough rule of thumb that deliberate targeting and murder of civilians is terrorism.

I'm comfortable with you having your own bespoke incorrect opinion.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975526#Comment_121975526

Who exactly outside of Russia are labeling these attacks as terrorism? It just sounds to me that certain posters buy into the Russian line cause it aligns more with their personal views. Do you think Russia was justified in invading Ukraine? Do you think they've committed genocidal acts?

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975225#Comment_121975225

There's a huge difference between attacking proven enemies of the state, as the Dugina's were and are. They helped to shape public opinion against Ukraine with their lying propaganda, and influenced Putin and his cronies. They indirectly caused the deaths of innocent Ukrainian civilians. You mention gloating…have you ever watched RT's Solovuv, Mardan, Simonyan or Skabayeeva in action? They give master classes in gloating. It proves exactly nothing about Ukrainian involvement in the slaughter of innocent civilians in Moscow. While Putin has a long history of assassinating civilians (Navalny being the most recent, so far…..) The same cannot be said about Ukraine. Putin his is up to his usual murderous tricks again…. nothing has changed since the Moscow apartment bombings that killed more than 300 innocent Russian civilians. IMHO, Ukraine had nothing to do with theatre attack. What would they have to gain by doing that? Nothing, that's what. And on the other hand, if they HAD done it, it would trigger a massive drop in support for them.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975589#Comment_121975589

As I said before, its kind of sad that people have been so radicalised that they endorse the deliberate murder of civilians.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975601#Comment_121975601

Can you clarify if you think Russia illegally invaded Ukraine and have committed genocidal acts? Pretty simple question overall.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975601#Comment_121975601

You mean the kind of radical doctrine the Dugina's were peddling? Yes? His ultranationalist state, Novorossiya and Russky Mir reaching from Vladivostok to western Europe? He's views have been called Fascist or neo-fascist, and he's been referred to as "Putin's Brain". What people are you talking about that have been radicalised? If you are insinuating that I have been radicalised and have endorsed the deliberate murder of civilians, please point it out!.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975658#Comment_121975658

I meant what I said, people who have so radicalised that they endorse the murder of civilian journalists like Darya Dugina and Vladen Tatarsky (his murder involved a bombing that wounded 25 other civilians) and a civilian truck driver being unwittingly forced to carry a bomb. When you're gone down that far what coherent objection is there to a mass killing of civilians who likely voted for Putin? Who might have family members serving in the Russian military? Who are out enjoying themselves at a concert instead of protesting against the war?

If you're radicalised enough, you can always come up with some reason why the victims deserved it, right?

As I said, Ukraine's admitted involvement in earlier terrorist attacks and the continued backing of their sponsors provides a useful context for who might be responsible for the most recent terrorist attack. But lets wait and see where the investigation goes.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975601#Comment_121975601

You also said this before:

I'm not interested in a "Is/Isn't" argument.

When the hypocrisy of your position was pointed out to you.

Proof positive this is a bad faith argument.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975526#Comment_121975526

That's not the definition of terrorism. You are the one calling it terrorism, you have entirely failed to establish that and have been challenged and corrected on this by multiple posters.

So, seems like your "rough rule of thumb" is just another word for "own bespoke incorrect opinion".

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975733#Comment_121975733

Quick Google of Tatarsky and Dugina really does not indicate they're "citizen journalists"... If anything they were acting as propagandists. Can you clarify on why you're choosing to misrepresent their role in Russian propaganda?

Tatarsky is attributed to a Russian group btw.

Also any reason you're avoiding my other questions? Do you think the invasion of Ukraine was justified? Do you think the Russian government are engaging in a campaign of genocide?

odyssey06

Darth Putin on Twitter:

Cos I keep insisting it was Ukraine, ISIS will probably have to attack Russia again, worse, and with even better proof. I remain a master strategist.

odyssey06

Macron :

President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that the gunmen who killed 137 people in a concert hall outside Moscow were part of an Islamic State branch that was behind foiled attempts to attack France over the past few months...

Russia, which has challenged assertions by the United States that the Islamic State militant group orchestrated the mass shooting in Moscow, continued on Monday to suggest Ukraine was to blame. Macron said this was "cynical and counterproductive"."This attack was claimed by Islamic State," Macron said, "and the information available to us, to our (intelligence) services as well as to our main partners, indicates indeed that it was an entity of the Islamic State which instigated and carried out this attack.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/macron-it-would-be-cynical-counterproductive-russia-pin-moscow-attack-ukraine-2024-03-25/

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975733#Comment_121975733

Quote:-When you're gone down that far what coherent objection is there to a mass killing of civilians who likely voted for Putin? Who might have family members serving in the Russian military? Who are out enjoying themselves at a concert instead of protesting against the war? Un-Quote.

Since when has Putin cared about anything or anyone other than himself? And for sure, he doesn't care one whit for anyone enjoying a concert, and you may have forgotten, but protesting of any kind is forbidden, unless of course it against the west, UK, US or Ukraine. As for who voted for Putin, who else were they allowed to vote for? Ditto, serving members of the Russian army, do they have a choice? You talk about killing innocent civilians in a theatre in Moscow, and I agree with you its monstrous, just like the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians in Ukraine, Syria, Chechnya and Georgia carried out on Putin's orders, but you seem blind to all this?

jmreire

Meanwhile, is Putin having a change of heart?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1775960202145059267

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975820#Comment_121975820

Yes, they were Russian govt. mouthpieces, don't think they really have many "journalists" (at least remaining outside of jail or exile).

Castigating Ukraine for going after likes of them, in their current situation (after Russia invading them completely unprovoked, and now past 2 years into the Russians throwing the kitchen sink at them and trying to destroy their country) seems a bit like attacking the UK, or Polish partisans perhaps, for assasinating Goebbels or Lord Haw Haw during WW2! Kind of perverse.

jmreire

But somethings never change in Putins Russia, do they? Another example of what happens when you speak out against Putin or his criminal mafia.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1775938597830410639

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975320#Comment_121975320

They invaded Ukraine. There was no self defence. Go read a book or something.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975400#Comment_121975400

Up to the time it was bombed, the Bridge was the main means of transportation for everything, military and civilian using it's road and rail links between Russia and Occupied Crimea. It's only used now for light one way traffic on a single lane because its too damaged to carry any heavy loads as it did before. So, no more heavy military transporting. It was a legitimate war target. How many bridges did the allies bomb during ww2? Each and every one was a legitimate military target.

The Kerch bridge was blown up (according to you Sand) using a driver who was unaware of what he was carrying, and the bomb detonated remotely. If that was indeed the case, (and another source, the BBC claimed it was done using a maritime drone) how do you know that the driver was unaware of what he was doing? It would not be the first time that a brave Ukrainian hero sacrificed his Life for his country. Now perhaps you would like to comment on any of the many terrorist attacks carried out on Putin's orders?

ilkhanid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121975428#Comment_121975428

And obviously you regard electricity to the genitals and the severing of ears as a valid method of investigation to determine whom is responsible for the attack? Presumably, had you been alive in 1937 you would have regarded the methods used by the OGPU during the Moscow trials as legitimate methods?

As for supposed ''terrorism'', the Dugins were Ruzzia propagandists for violence and terrorism themselves, and indeed for genocide. They were no better (and the same is true of characters like Peskov and Krasovsky with their incendiary rantings) than the broadcasters of Radio Collines and Julius Streicher. Do you need to be reminded of the fate of that particular Nazi?

I should also add; the USSR, not Ruzzia, built the Kerch bridge , and since it is now part of the property of the Republic of Ukraine, Ruzzia has no more rights to it than the British government has to, say, the Boyne viaduct.

Even if every charge against Ukraine was true, Ruzzia lost the right to take the higher ground against any opponent, even IS, a long, long time ago.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121977021#Comment_121977021

I've already mentioned that you can make a (weak) argument for the military value of the bridge, but the truck attack didn't cause any damage of a militarily significant nature. Russian logistics rely on railways. The rail connection was immediately reopened. The bridge was reopened to civilian vehicles the following day. I believe all repairs were completed by May 2023. There was no impact to the Russian army. The Kerch bridge isn't even critical to supplies for Crimea. The bridge was only built in 2018. Which means the Russians fully garrisoned and supplied Crimea's entire military and civilian needs via its ports and ferries for 4 years. And that at a time when Ukraine had cut off Crimean access to water.

As I noted before, the real reason Ukraine is obsessed with the bridge is not its (dubious) military value, its the symbolic value of the bridge.

The truck attack was irrelevant in a military sense. But it did kill 5 civilians, including the truck driver, who was a 51 year old guy who was a trucker for 25 years just picking up one load (the disguised bomb) and bringing it to another place. His murder was not accidental - it was built into the Ukrainian plan which killed 4 other civilians. Deliberate murder of civilians is open and shut terrorism.

So we have a state with a track record of sponsoring terrorism. That by itself doesn't prove anything regarding the most recent Moscow attack, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121977017#Comment_121977017

I said the pretext was collective self defence. You can disagree with the pretext and it still be the pretext they used.

ilkhanid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121977258#Comment_121977258

It was no more terrorism than most Allied bombing attacks against Germany military targets during the Second World War, even those near the battlefield, many of which were repaired by the Germans and most of which inflicted cvilian casualties many, many multiples of the civilian casualties on the Kerch bridge.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121977327#Comment_121977327

You can argue the case that the target is valid - its dubious, but you can argue it. But you cant argue that turning a 51 truck driver with a family into your unwitting mule to carry the bomb and die in the explosion is anything other than terrorism.