Photos at website:

Russian media share pictures of four suspected terrorists, in the Crocus concert hall massacre in Moscow, giving their names as (clockwise from the left) Makhmadrasul Nasridinov, 27, Rivozhidin Ismonov, 51, Shokhindzhonn Safolzoda, 21, Rustam Nazarov, 29

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...s-concert-death.html

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
Turns out Ukraine was directly involved. Per the

Why do you continue to post up russian propaganda lies?


This is from credible news sites:
- showed images of four suspects, all from ex-Soviet republic Tajikistan, which borders Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
You do realize russia targets civilians, right?

Yes, I do realize that. Is your opinion that because the Russian government commits wartime atrocities that it is acceptable to murder Russian civilians?

So whether or not it is OK to murder somebody depends on where that person was born, not anything that person has done?

If that is your opinion, I disagree and reject your logic. When Russia intentionally sends a rocket barrage into a civilian area to kill them that is wrong. When Ukrainians blow up a dam to intentionally flood a civilian area and drown school children that is wrong. When ISIS walks into a theater to randomly shoot guns at innocent people that is wrong. I feel no obligation to go all over the world correcting wrongs like some international policeman, but on the other hand, I will not financially support people who embrace such tactics. And if they do it to me and mine, I will kill them ruthlessly and have done so at scale already.

But at no point in my pursuit of legitimate military targets will I acquiesce to intentionally killing civilians simply because they are of the same national origin or ethnicity of my enemy.

Yer readin alot into my statement there, killer.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
You do realize russia targets civilians, right?

They murdered thousands of non-combatant civilians to loot their appliances.

There's no telling who shot up that place, there are too many with a score to settle. Ukraine is just the favorite scapegoat. Russia has a severe breakaway rebel problem that is taking full advantage of the chaos.

I'm reading a lot into your post because there is a lot to read into it and a ton of questions that come to mind.

1 Who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? Russia? Why?
2 Are you suggesting that you only go to war if you can only kill uniformed combatants?
3 Do you think it is somewhat odd that this shit is happening as Ukraine is running out of fighting age men?
4 How much have you personally contributed to the good and just Ukrainian cause?
5 Can you assure us that this good and just battle that you support won't go nuclear?

Finally:
6 If we push Russia back to the original borders what will be the US strategic advantage?

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
You do realize russia targets civilians, right?

Yes, I do realize that. Is your opinion that because the Russian government commits wartime atrocities that it is acceptable to murder Russian civilians?

So whether or not it is OK to murder somebody depends on where that person was born, not anything that person has done?

Yer readin alot into my statement there, killer.

If there’s a different way for me to read your words, feel free to correct my assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:


I'm reading a lot into your post because there is a lot to read into it and a ton of questions that come to mind.

Well, I guess you'll never know. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Well, I guess you'll never know. LOL

Great way to explain your position. Thanks. I can see you've gone mentally deep into this issue and made some very intellectual decisions.

Maybe start a new thread: President Zelenskyy, the answer is YES

I would love to see the "pro" posts because I am not even close to understanding why we should even be involved in this conflict.

It’s time to talk about Ukraine again, things are moving fast in the Proxy War. Yesterday, Reuters ran a fascinating story headlined, “US has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, FT reports.”

After Ukraine’s terror strikes on civilian polling places last weekend, it attacked dozens of Russian refineries with explosive kamikaze drones, successfully damaging a score of production facilities. But weirdly, according to Reuters, the “United States has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, warning that drone strikes risk provoking retaliation and driving up global oil prices.”

Sadly for Ukraine, the U.S.’s warning came too late. Yesterday, the BBC ran a story headlined, “Ukraine war: Five dead and a million without power after wave of Russian strikes.”
image 12.png

In its largest strike in over a year, Russia launched 90 missiles and 60 Shahed drones into Ukraine during a wave of overnight attacks on Thursday. Nearly all the targets were Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Reuters identified the strikes as payback:

Russia's defence ministry said the assault on Ukraine's power grid was part of a series of revenge attacks against Kyiv for its earlier incursions into Russian territory.

It will be harder now for Ukraine to recover from those infrastructure attacks, since it isn’t swimming in US taxpayer dollars.

Warbloggers were also very excited yesterday observing what appears to be Russian preparations for a major offensive, as Putin’s spokesman described a change in strategy from “active defense” to something closer to a real war footing. It is starting to look a lot like the Russians have been holding back, and are about to open a can of full-strength butt-kicking on Ukraine.

Then late yesterday, the news cycle erupted again. Reports flowed like the Dnieper river reporting a terror attack on a civilian concert in Moscow. At least five masked terrorists unloaded automatic weapons on innocent concert goers just outside Russia’s capital city, killing at least 100 unarmed noncombatant civilians — including children — and wounding many more. On their way out, the terrorists used gasoline bombs to start a massive fire that collapsed the concert venue’s roof.

The dissembling and denials began immediately. Ukraine immediately denied having anything to do with the attack, just as it promptly denied having anything to do with the terrorist bombing of the Nordstream pipeline. Bizarrely, ISIS popped up like a Jack-in-the-box out of the dustbin of history and claimed responsibility. The U.S. warned Russia not to over-react.

Just wait. Soon they’ll accuse Russia of attacking itself.

But late last night (daytime in Moscow), the Russians reported catching the terrorists just 62 miles from the border as they were fleeing toward Ukraine. (Details vary.)

The Russians said that the terrorists’ car contained automatic weapons used in the attack. Since they’ve begun interrogating the captured terrorists, Russian officials have released the names of 37 more people accused of being involved in what increasingly appears to be a Ukrainian operation.

Assuming that after the hot takes and confusion subside, the Russians link the terrorists to Ukraine, the terrorist attack on the Crocus center starts to look a lot like the October 7th attack on Israel. In other words, Russia will have an unassailable moral mandate to begin using scorched earth tactics in Ukraine like the Israelis did in Gaza.

Let’s take a quick historical view. Back nine years ago, on March 10, 2015, three years before the Proxy War started, the New York Times ran a spellbinding article headlined, "Obama Said to Resist Growing Pressure From All Sides to Arm Ukraine.” In the article, then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken warned against NATO mucking about in Ukraine. He predicted it would be a dead loser:

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Blinken said in a speech in Berlin. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as [NATO] countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”

Quadrupled. In 2015, Blinken made a great deal of sense. At the time he said that, Blinken served President Obama, and Joe Biden was Vice President. As the headline suggests, in 2015 Obama opposed NATO getting involved in Ukraine.

What changed?

No matter. It turns out that 2015 Blinken was right, and 2022 Blinken was wrong. As soon as Biden infested the White House, the “growing pressure to arm Ukraine” — resisted by Obama — got the green light. I smell neocon-ism.

I condemn the terrorist attacks on Russia in the strongest possible terms. For my whole life, over and over I’ve heard the old saying, “don’t poke the Russian bear.” It seems Ukraine will soon find out why.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...rue&utm_medium=email

From your post chellim1

quote:

Let’s take a quick historical view. Back nine years ago, on March 10, 2015, three years before the Proxy War started, the New York Times ran a spellbinding article headlined, "Obama Said to Resist Growing Pressure From All Sides to Arm Ukraine.” In the article, then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken warned against NATO mucking about in Ukraine. He predicted it would be a dead loser:

Odd that Blinken is advocating the exact opposite now. Arghhhhh.

quote:

Just wait. Soon they’ll accuse Russia of attacking itself.

But late last night (daytime in Moscow), the Russians reported catching the terrorists just 62 miles from the border as they were fleeing toward Ukraine. (Details vary.)

This would not be the first time the FSB created or directed an attack according to the Russian underground. My brother-in-law's long time childhood friend lost his wife & children in the 2004 North Ossetia school attack in southern Russia. Putin used the attack as an excuse to eliminate gubernatorial elections & allowed him to appoint regional governors.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
Turns out Ukraine was directly involved. Per the

Why do you continue to post up russian propaganda lies?

This is from credible news sites:
- showed images of four suspects, all from ex-Soviet republic Tajikistan, which borders Afghanistan.

How do you know that the 'RT' propaganda is any less credible that the 'Credible News Sites' propaganda you speak of, or even the US.gov/State Dept. for that matter? At this point everyone seems 'way too invested' in what they want to believe and/or the propaganda that comforts them as it supports the side they're rooting for. For all we know, these 'suspects' got together with the Ukrainians (GUR, SBU, or perhaps even the CIA) because they have a common enemy, and persuaded them to provide the logistics & weapons support needed to carry out their terrorist act. Time will tell, but I'm not inclined to believe anything in the short term.

About the only thing we'll be able to believe when/if it comes to fruition is either that there's a negotiated peace deal, or that the missiles are flying, and the latter will be easy to confirm in VERY short order. Until such time, I believe NOTHING re: pretty much anything 'reported' on this conflict!

ISIS has a long history of clashes with Russia. This is nothing new. We can sometimes think that all of the Islamic crazies are part of a single crazy Islamic death cult, with franchises all over the world with different names. Not really true. ISIS has been fighting the Taliban for years. Many of the franchises cooperate. Others wage war on other death cult franchises.

Say what you want about the Ukrainians, but their attacks in Russia to date have all been strategic - Oil refineries, bridges, and other straight up military targets. Many here I know don't have much good to say about Ukraine. But I don't think the Ukrainians are that stupid. The Ukrainians are well aware that an attack on a bunch of concert goers would cost them an enormous loss of support world wide. And for what? To kill a bunch of kids at a concert. No strategic value whatsoever. Zero upside. Enormous downside.

The Guardian has a good analysis of the long history of the ISIS/Russia conflict.

The attack was carried out by Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) a regional affiliate of the IS terrorist organisation. IS has been implicated in some of Russia’s largest recent terror attacks, including the 2017 bombing in the St Petersburg metro that killed 15 and injured 45.

US intelligence told American news agencies that there’s “no reason to doubt” the IS claims of responsibility.
law enforcement holding guns outside building with sign saying crocus city hall with fire in the air behind them
Moscow concert hall attack: what we know so far
Read more

The group, which is a branch of IS mainly based in Afghanistan, has increasingly focused its attention on Russia since the United States left Afghanistan in 2021. The group was formed in 2015 by members of militant groups, including those from Pakistan and Uzbekistan, and is active in central Asia and Russia. It carried out twin bombings in January in Iran that killed nearly 100 people.

Here is the link. Any google search will make it clear that ISIS attacking Russia is nothing new.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...was-by-islamic-state

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
You have to be kidding that you want the US to put boots on the ground for a spot of the globe that has zero strategic value.

Can you point out where I said that?

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...690044594#1690044594

Granted, it’s been a little bit since you said it, and it’s not what you were saying in the bit that Bytes quoted, but you did say it.

The French people revolt against Macron’s anti-Russia belligerence.

https://revolver.news/2024/03/...russia-belligerence/

IFOP, France’s leading polling company, sees Macron’s popularity go down to an appalling 28% and comments: “The very strong discontent towards the president is mainly focused on Ukraine and the issue of sending Western troops on the ground”

Who knew that calling for France to go to war with Russia would be so unpopular

Anyhow, we therefore have yet another instance of a President of a Western liberal “democracy” going in the total opposite direction to the will of his people, which is almost becoming synonymous with liberal “democracy” at this stage…

The UK announces they will no longer buy oil from Russia. They will buy it from France, who buys it from Russia.
Cream of the crop this leadership

Ukraine has attacked plenty of civillian targets. It's what they can do

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
Ukraine has attacked plenty of civillian targets. It's what they can do

Of course there has been collaterral damage when targets such as oil refineries and bridges have been attacked by Ukraine. But these are all legitimate military targets. Can you cite a single example of a case where Ukraine has by design targeted a civilian target with no military significance. Like for example when the Russians have targeted hospitals that are no where near a legitimate military target.

From the Kyiv Post:

Big-Ticket, Expensive, Heavily Armored NATO Tanks Mostly Overweight Duds in the Russo-Ukrainian War

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/...ack&utm_medium=email

By a long shot, the enduring image of a NATO-standard modern main battle tank in the Russo-Ukraine War is a video of a stopped vehicle getting hammered by cheap FPV drones, before it gets set on fire and burns down to a six-million-dollar hulk.

Combat video posted by the 79th Air Assault Brigade on Tuesday, reportedly from the eastern Avdiivka sector, was typical, showing a stationary US-made M1A2 Abrams tank hit with a detonation in the back of the turret, probably by a Russian FPV drone.

Three crew hurl themselves from the main battle tank (MBT) as ammunition stored in a bin on the back of Abrams’ turret catches on fire. The vehicle appears to have taken minor damage. Shells inside the ammo bin start cooking off and the blaze spreads to the tank’s hull. Thirty seconds later the American fighting vehicle is burning fiercely and appears well on its way to becoming a total-write off. The fate of the fourth crewman isn’t clear.

When a US-led coalition of Western nations was confronted with Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, policymakers and security experts on both sides of the Atlantic debated for months about sending Kyiv modern tanks. The main worries were that maybe Ukrainians couldn’t operate or maintain such modern weapons, or that maybe Ukraine would collapse, or that perhaps Russia might do something aggressive.

With Britain leading the way, Ukraine’s allies sent Ukraine about 120-130 NATO-grade tanks. The first vehicles arrived in April 2023. The hope was Western MBTs would spearhead assaults on Russian defenses. The first serious commitment of NATO tanks against the Russian army took place in June. It didn’t go well, and by October according to open sources, 10 German Leopard 2 tanks had been knocked out for zero Ukrainian battlefield gains.

Almost a year later, the Ukrainian army mostly uses advanced Western tanks like Leopard 2 as expensive artillery pieces, lobbing shells at the Russians from a long distance. They stay away from the front line.

Mike Riedmuller, a former US Army cavalry officer commanding Abrams tanks in combat in Iraq, in comments to Kyiv Post said that one reason NATO’s best tanks haven’t performed up to expectations in the Russo-Ukrainian War is that cheap drones are so dense over the battlefield that almost any time a tank breaks near the front line, swarms of drones buzz in to attack it.

Of the 31 American Abrams sent to Ukraine, at least five reportedly have been destroyed following the vehicle’s first serious commitment to combat in February. At least three were burnt after having been hit repeatedly by FPV drones in the Avdiivka sector, a Kyiv Post review of the battle video found.

Fourteen Challenger 2 tanks were assigned to the 82nd Air Assault Brigade, a seasoned formation with top-priority access to the best weapons and equipment available to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU). Operators have said that at 64 tons the tank is too heavy to cross most Ukrainian bridges or cross soft ground without getting stuck, and that spare parts are chronically short. Leopard 2’s weight is similar. Abrams’ is about five tons more.

The first Challenger was burnt in the Robotyne sector in September 2023. Reportedly, the tank was hit by artillery during an attack, stopped moving, and was then set on fire. Two Challengers were operational in mid-March, Sun newspaper reported. MP Grant Shapps told British media on Sept. 6 there were no plans to send replacements.

The most common modern NATO tank in Ukraine is Germany’s Leopard 2. Most are Cold War-era models produced in the early 1990s and priced at the time at about $6 million each. According to the international military data site Oryx Ukraine’s European allies have transferred 82 Leopard 2 tanks, with Germany and Poland kicking in 18 and 14 respectively.

More at link

Another interesting article:

What’s up With Mobilization in Ukraine?

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29886

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
Ukraine has attacked plenty of civillian targets. It's what they can do

Refuneries ate not "civilian targets" - these are legitimate wartime targets.

6 months after the aid from the US has practically stopped and Ukraine is still standing. Makes one wonder what was in that Trump's plan to "end the war in 24 hours". Some suggested it was hinged on stopping the aid, but it's abundantly clear now that it doesn't work like that. Not in hours, not in days, not in months... What did he mean then? Something like this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...ZWQgYm9ibWluZw%3D%3D ?