Russia unleashes missile barrage on cities across Ukraine

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher

Possibly a (smallish) missile, but the damage showed zero indications that it was HIMARS, and there would be 'indications'.

More likely someone set off an explosive to cover for the fact that they had already killed all the prisoners, probably in an effort to cover for the fact that they had first severely tortured the prisoners.

My devil face was to show I was being sarcastic. The fire was internal only... So yes there was a fire, it burned most of everything inside leaving all four walls intact and most of the roof. So there was not an explosion, but someone started a fire inside.

I was answering for others, I knew you understood.

It actually resembled propane tank fires I've seen in the past.

a reply to: WhatItIs
Where are the images of the other side of that prison??

a reply to: Xtrozero
Well suicide attacks were generally called just that for the last twenty years in conflict zones with soldiers stationed from NATO members. Unless the poor bastard had no idea there was a bomb on his truck, which still falls under a terrorist attack. But a bridge is a legitimate target anyways and im not disputing the validity of such target.

As far as that broken record on russia invaded first, they are simply following precedent set by other Security council members in the 21st century for pre emptive attacks for national security. Even though that precedent was justified by a propoganda campaign using 2 massive known lies by said Security council members and admitted to as such in numerous books, memoirs, and news reports.

a reply to: worldstarcountry


Can you name a single other 'security council member' that went on a land grabbing invasion.as you claimed?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: WhatItIs
Where are the images of the other side of that prison??

There is satellite photos of the site, is that false. What’s your evidence to back Russian claims vs the actual evidence?

How did Russia claiming they would let the Red Cross and other monitoring organizations access to the crime scene workout?

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher
Can you name a single other 'security council member' that went on a land grabbing invasion.as you claimed?

China and Tibet?

a reply to: paraphi

I thought of that one as well, although it was not in the 21st century.

China succeeded in squelching discussion of their occupation Tibet, it seems. Dalai Llama isn't in the news. Guess the MSM got their marching orders on that topic.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

The Russian propagandists roll out the "what about" to justify Russia's behaviour. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union, all Russian conflicts have been about land grabbing and annexation. Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have all suffered the attention of Russian imperialism. Bloody conflict in a couple of Russian republics to keep control just reiterates Russian barbarity.

a reply to: Tarantula777

I HATE YOU PUTIN WITH ALL THE HATE I CAN MUSTER. Bring on the nuclear war. This is all a load of # anyway. Go on, you #ing coward killer of mothers and babies. All your friends are dictator tyrants. You are a lot of monsters and soon the world will be rid of you all. You bunch of little willy losers.

Let the HATE flow...

Good citizen

a reply to: paraphi

Thats not entirely true. It was Russian loyalists, Ukrainian citizens, who revolted when Yanukovich was removed from office after saying he would cut ties with EU and re-open economic ties with Moscow. Progressives wanted to stay with the EU and revolted but it was Ukrainian separatists who seized parliament and raised the Russian flag in Crimea in 2014, not Russian military.

As far as I can tell, you are right about the rest.

There is usually more to the story than meets the eye. People have evolved to just read bullet points and not look into the deeper causality of most issues. Something that is absolutely necessary when discussing international relations since there is so much going on in the background that influences every decision.

Please understand my interest is purely historical accuracy. I do not make excuses for or legitimize unnecessary aggression or violence.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Thats not entirely true. It was Russian loyalists, Ukrainian citizens, who revolted when Yanukovich was removed from office after saying he would cut ties with EU and re-open economic ties with Moscow. Progressives wanted to stay with the EU and revolted but it was Ukrainian separatists who seized parliament and raised the Russian flag in Crimea in 2014, not Russian military.

Not sure why you think what I said was "not entirely true".

The events around the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 are well known and examined. Even the role of the Russian military in the annexation of Crimea is well understood, as they executed an invasion. Whether, or not, it was separatists who took over the Parliament in Crimea is a moot point, because backing them up were Russian military personnel.

Since 2014 the Russians have been conducting ethnic cleansing in Crimea. What is it with Russians and their exceptionalism? They destroy so many lives.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Thats not entirely true. It was Russian loyalists, Ukrainian citizens, who revolted when Yanukovich was removed from office after saying he would cut ties with EU and re-open economic ties with Moscow. Progressives wanted to stay with the EU and revolted but it was Ukrainian separatists who seized parliament and raised the Russian flag in Crimea in 2014, not Russian military.

Not sure why you think what I said was "not entirely true".

The events around the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 are well known and examined. Even the role of the Russian military in the annexation of Crimea is well understood, as they executed an invasion. Whether, or not, it was separatists who took over the Parliament in Crimea is a moot point, because backing them up were Russian military personnel.

Since 2014 the Russians have been conducting ethnic cleansing in Crimea. What is it with Russians and their exceptionalism? They destroy so many lives.

Got any evidence of this ethnic cleansing in crimea?

Because by all accounts the crimeans are happy being part of Russia. They are certainly better off.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Got any evidence of this ethnic cleansing in crimea?

Because by all accounts the crimeans are happy being part of Russia. They are certainly better off.

Not personally, but you are free to do the research if you doubt. There's plenty of material publicly available of evidence of ethnic cleaning and human rights abuses going on in Crimea since 2014. Sort of a continuation of the cleaning and abuse over the last 100 years, or more, by Russia.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry

Well suicide attacks were generally called just that for the last twenty years in conflict zones with soldiers stationed from NATO members. Unless the poor bastard had no idea there was a bomb on his truck, which still falls under a terrorist attack. But a bridge is a legitimate target anyways and im not disputing the validity of such target.

I believe they have determined the explosion was from the train as that is where you see explosion start then cross into the road, so someone put explosives on the fuel car in Russia and blew it up on the bridge. No no suicide bomber there.

As far as that broken record on russia invaded first, they are simply following precedent set by other Security council members in the 21st century for pre emptive attacks for national security. Even though that precedent was justified by a propoganda campaign using 2 massive known lies by said Security council members and admitted to as such in numerous books, memoirs, and news reports.

Where is America's 51, 52 ,53, 54th states? Also, Ukraine did not have any direct threat to Russia for Russia to physically invade. Russia is all about land grabbing to get the old USSR back together, so I'm not going to debate precedence with you as Russia's goal is massively different in their objectives than America's has been in either Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Russia says there is no such thing as Ukraine, it is Russia and I don't seem to remember America using that level of statements towards another country.

In the end you can justify it all you want in Russia's favor, but the reality is we disagree with them and so will support Ukraine until Russia pays an extremely heavy price in a dozen directions while not really gaining much of anything in the end, but for us it will end with Putin gone.

Putin massively miscalculated and will end up with 200k dead or with life long injuries and economic destruction for Russia, and I'm pretty sure there are many rich and powerful people in Russia that are not too happy with all that.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

Because by all accounts the crimeans are happy being part of Russia. They are certainly better off.

All accounts according to whom, Russia? Kind of like Crimea's 95% vote? Geez... In either case there is no constitutional voting process for a chunk of a country to leave. What would you say if the lower half of Texas said they wanted to vote to join Mexico? The whole idea is folly anyways as there is only maybe Quebec that has that in their constitution as the whole rest of the world to include Ukraine doesn't, and all would laugh at the thought to include Russia if any part of them said we want to leave. As to Crimea they invaded and then said the people voted 95% in favor of them, and we need to understand the population there was 60% Russian and 40% Ukrainian, so 40% of the population there didn't vote to join Russia as 40% of the population was forced by gun point under Russia's rule. Crimea was 100% about securing a port for the Black Sea navy in the winter, nothing more or less.

Some historical background about Russian ethnic cleansing in Crimea .

after the USSR regained Crimea, all its Tatars, 194 000 of people, were accused of collaboration and deported to Uzbekistan. At least 20% of them perished during the first 18 months after their deportation. Crimean Autonomous Soviet Republic was abolished, the peninsula made a regular Russian province, and all Tatar place names replaced by Russian names. Crimean Tatars received the right to return to their homeland in 1989. By 2001, they formed 12.1% of the Crimean population. Most of them support Ukraine.

Russia and Crimea: Heroism and ethnic cleansing


Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
According to the usual circle jerkers in these threads russia had run out of missiles.

Looks like they have plenty.

How come they are now having to use S300's as land attack missiles now?

When I say "land attack" I mean to attack civilian targets.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe


'Because by all accounts the crimeans are happy being part of Russia'


According to russian propaganda anyway.

But of course russian propaganda also pretends russia didn't invade in 2014 and chase all the non russian supporters out of Crimea.

a reply to: Vroomfondel


"Ukrainian separatists"?


Ukraine was not part of russia at the time, making them Ukrainian Patriots, not separatists.


More word twisting russian propaganda.

a reply to: paraphi


.

Got anything more recent than 70 years ago?