Posted on 10/09/2022 1:26:16 PM PDT by Vlad0
It definitely was not a truck - current contenders are a missile from Kherson Oblast or an anti-ship UAV.
Interesting, thanks.
There is zero fear of escalation among the warmongering maniacs in DC who are running this thing. Why not get in a tit for tat terrorist war with the Chechens?
The response to this will be epic. I have zero doubt. One only had to listen to Putin's speech of 30 September to know that he is 100% committed to protecting Russia. The Crimea is clearly part of Russia, so this was an attack on the motherland. It will not go unpunished.
It looked like it came from around the pile.
It was a big badda boom.
That stooge serves at DC’s whim. He’s no more in charge than President Vegetable is. What he does and says has the regime’s backing. The non rational ones are in DC. Zelensky is playing them for everything he can.
Good point.
It’s a legitimate target. Calling the attack “terrorism” is silly.
Russia Finds Mystery Vessel On Crimean Beach: Is It A New Ukrainian Attack Drone?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/09/22/mystery-vessel-may-be-new-ukrainian-attack-drone/?sh=4f3ed1ff7a77
Time to institute a draft of everyone with the Ukraine flag in their profile - or who posts more than one ukie propaganda article a week on FR…
If you look carefully, it's clear that there was something in the water, underneath the bridge.
It wasn't a truck bomb.
How far back down the supply chain can one go and still have it be a defensive act of war? The USA is providing all the munitions for Ukraine. If Russia dropped the Brooklyn Bridge (or some other bridge that would block a major harbor) into the Hudson River would that be a legitimate tactic of war?
“Time to institute a draft of everyone with the Ukraine flag in their profile - or who posts more than one ukie propaganda article a week on FR…”
Then you’d encourage and applaud the pro-Russia cabal — of which you are one — of doing the same for their beloved Russia.
We await your selfies from the front lines.
I’m glad you bring up the fact that the Kherson bridge is a supply line for the Russian war effort, but as for the balance of your analysis, I must tell you that I find it unconvincing.
“If Russia dropped the Brooklyn Bridge (or some other bridge that would block a major harbor) into the Hudson River would that be a legitimate tactic of war?”
There are no rules in war. It entirely depends on if Russia wants to continue existing.
Direct attack on the USA: that’s Article 5. USA doctrine is absolute on that: Russia ceases to exist a few hours later.
“If you look carefully, it’s clear that there was something in the water, underneath the bridge.”
I looked and looked for that, but didn’t see anything like what you have described. What minute-mark of the video shows this?
Thanks.
What a total crock. To suggest that Ukraine wouldn’t know HOW to carry such a thing out without the West is totally absurd. Almost like it came directly from Pravda (the official Propaganda outlet for the Kermlin).
> It’s a legitimate target. Calling the attack “terrorism” is silly. <
Absolutely correct. It is certainly open to debate who is ultimately responsible for this war. Good people can have very different views on that subject.
What shouldn’t be open to debate is that a bridge is a legitimate military target. As would be a factory or a rail yard. So what then is terrorism? It’s when civilians are deliberately targeted. The 9/11 Twin Towers attack is a perfect example of that. The Towers had no military value at all. None.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.