Breaking - Shooting and Explosion at Concert Hall in Moscow

So you've narrowed Ukraine's 'terrorism' down to basically a single IRA operation?

Well, your second source is clearly faulty. Vasyl Malyuk, the head of the SBU gave an interview 25 March 2024 where he admitted the Russians do not use the Kerch bridge for military purposes. But yet Russia continues to sustain military operations without it. Despite recognising it has no military value, Malyuk still wants to hit it. Because it has symbolic value.

A strike on a civilian target which has no military value (as admitted by the SBU) is terrorism. So, as I noted, we have a state that is comfortable with carrying out terrorism.

As for you wanting to drag the thread off topic, this is about the terrorist attack in Moscow and speculation about who might have motive, means and opportunity - at least until the investigation concludes. The 2022 truck bombing of the Kerch bridge is only relevant because it demonstrates past behaviour of a possible candidate for organising terrorist attacks.

So regarding the Cactus terrorist attack, do you think that Putin (or his FSB) had anything to do with it, or not? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Where would you place Ukrainian 'terrorism' in your list of concerns which seems to include things like immigrants and transgender people?

Are you so far gone that you're arguing whether the Kerch bridge is a valid military target? You've lost all semblance of your morality in this anti-NATO/USA stupor.

The target is valid, and turning the truck driver into an unwitting mule does not necessarily make it terrorism. Blowing up the bridge with the truck driver on it - what's the difference? You haven't even tried to explain it. The attack was not intended to terrorise the civilian population, but to attack a target which has military utility and affects Russia's ability to control illegally annexed territory.

So we can see in the absence of foundation or evidence, you are just arguing by assertion.

And also, running away from any posts contrary to your false narrative about Ukraine when it is pointed out to you that Russia is well capable of killing its own citizens deliberately for political purposes, and does so as a way of terrorising their citizens into submission and not speaking out. Do you deny that?

And that the public results of their 'investigation' will be drafted for propaganda value. Do you deny that?

It is obvious to anyone paying attention to the thread your posts are just exercises in dumping Russian propaganda, purely to have an excuse to criticise Ukraine. Any recognition of how Russia abuses its own citizens is entirely absent from your posts, and what that means for how Russia behaves in response to these attacks. Your concern for terrorism stretches as far as Russian borders it seems.

The idea that Ukraine is behind the theatre attack is without merit or foundation. It makes no sense except as the basis for Russia to further its propaganda war against Ukraine and you are a party to that. You are digging up irrelevent actions by Ukraine, while ignoring how Russia acts and that ISIS-K has claimed responsibility.

Come on, you can't put a Ukrainian source forward as trustworthy, i think they might be a tad bias in regards this matter don't you think.

The fact is right now nobody knows 100% what happened but it's most likely what it seems an Islamic terror attack. Sometimes there is no wild conspiracy it's just the most likely scenario.

Journalists? To repeat myself unnecessarily, they were journalists in the same way that Ferdinand Nahimana and Hassan Ngeze were ''journalists''. They were war criminals. The coffee shop bombing was undertaken by the Ruzzian resistance and Ukrainian involvement is always a feature of Ruzzian denunciations and about as credible as all their accusations. That is-not at all. While I'm at it, I notice you have had nothing to say about the Ruzzian murder of Victoria Amelinna , also killed in a restaurant.

In fairness, I've asked you more than once on if you think Russia had the right to invade Ukraine and have also asked if you believe they're pursuing a genocidal agenda. Generally when people don't answer such questions, it says a lot about their views. Instead we get vague dodges on the topic.

In fairness, you keep claiming Dugina was just a run of the mill journalist... She was doing propaganda for the Russians. The Tatarsky killing wasn't even attributed to Ukraine but you seemed to have sold the line they killed him...

The US have said it was ISIS K. I'm not given any credence to the Kremlin please don't try and twist my words.

Some posters have said it doesn’t look like an Islamic attack because of the way the attackers tried to escape rather than commit a traditional “suicide” attack ending in their own deaths.
There were a couple of counter examples posted at the time.

Here’s another example that’s in the news today, where the attackers fled, this time in a taxi, and hid for 48 hours before being taken alive:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68737669

I guess they just can’t find competent staff for their suicide missions any more? 🤨

It actually doesn't. You see how I mentioned China, India and the "global south" in the very next line as the audience Russia is making the argument to? The initial pretext Russia presented (to the same audience) of collective self defence only allows them to go so far - once Donbass is effectively secured and the original pretext closed, what rationale has Russia to proceed further? Russia (and lets face it, China, India and the global south) need a new pretext to justify to themselves proceeding further. The head of the SBU has just handed them one on a platter.

I think I'd place it into a pattern of Ukrainian propaganda where the Ukrainians attempt to claim the Russians are shelling their own nuclear power plant, or the claim that some Russian resistance group carbombed Darya Dugina, or that some Russian liberation army totally unrelated to the Ukrainian army is invading Russia.

The Ukrainians might have some reason to lie about who carried out the Crocus City Hall attack. They have no reason to lie about Kerch bridge not being used for military purposes. So if the latter admission holds a lot more weight.

I'm posting in a thread where people are trying to justify the murder of civilians because they don't like the civilians.

On the other hand, I'm saying that when you try to blow up a civilian bridge, or any civilian infrastructure, you have to test that the military benefits outweigh the likely loss of civilian life. And even the SBU admits the bridge has no military purpose.

I don't think I am the one whose lost their moral compass. Unfortunately a lot of people have been radicalised to endorse the targeted murder of civilians. And once you're willing to accept the murder of civilians, what coherent objection do those people have to the murder of more civilians as was done in the Crocus City Hall attack?