Breaking - Shooting and Explosion at Concert Hall in Moscow

There's no gymnastics involved? It's objectively the pretext the Russians used. Crack open a dictionary and look up the word pretext. It doesn't imply the open ended approval you seem to think it does.

No, the various other murders of civilians carried out by the Ukrainians is still terrorism. So the truck bombing is part of a pattern, not a one off. But people prefer to argue about the military value of the Kerch bridge. Probably because they're queasy about the murders of journalists, bloggers and former politicians and the bombings of coffee shops so want to move away from them.

I don't have enough information to determine that. A couple of years ago, I'd probably have nodded along with the accusation because surely the commonly held view must be based on something concrete, right?

But now - when I consider the commonly held view is a single Ukrainian pilot was fighting off the entire Russian airforce by himself - well, I don't nod along with the accusation. I'd have to look at the evidence myself. Which at this point seems impossible.

EDIT - I thought you were referring to the earlier accusation that Putin and the FSB bombed an apartment block in 1999. But when you say Cactus, you might mean Crocus City Hall? If so, no. There's no evidence for it and any fringe benefit cant outweigh the damage it causes.

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.

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...

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?

Ukraine's (now-admitted) past campaign of terrorist actions is relevant to speculation as to who might be responsible for the most recent terrorist attack in Moscow. That's what I'm discussing in light of Russia's recent demand - which referenced the Crocus City Hall attack in the text without directly accusing Ukraine - to Ukraine that they cease terrorist activities and extradite a list of Ukrainians for trial, including the head of the SBU.

Meanwhile you want to go off on a whataboutery tangent which belongs on a different thread….

The reality is, there is an investigation that is ongoing. And lets not jump to conclusions until all the evidence is reviewed.

They weren't terrorist actions. Ukraine has not admitted to a campaign of terrorist attacks. This is entirely your own 'standard' which you only apply to Ukraine and not Russian actions in killing its own civilians. So this is just argument by repetition which multiple posters have already discredited.

You show zero interest in discussion of the other culprits who could be behind the attack such as the self declared ones ISIS-K. You are only interested in the discussion in so far as you can use it to criticise Ukraine.

Where is this other speculation by you on the thread of alternative culprits? Well? ISIS-K? Some internal Russian faction? Nowhere to be seen.

Proving the whataboutery is yours. You aren't here discussing the actual attack or actual evidence pointing to the culprits or any potential culprit other than Ukraine. It is just a constant Ukraine this and Ukraine that, with zero direct reference to the theatre attack.

Similarly your claims that we can expect a proper investigation and for all the actual evidence to be reviewed and made public is speculation without foundation. After waging a propaganda campaign against Ukraine, Russia is highly unlikely to turn around and say well actually Ukraine had nothing to do with it, and it was ISIS-K or some domestic faction now are they? No matter what internal evidence they have found.

This question was put to you before and you ignored it. When you cannot answer such a point, it is self-discrediting of your claims.