Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

I'm in full truther mode too now about the drone attack, but just to play devil's advocate, I'm sure the Kremlin is one of the most photographed and videoed places on the planet, so that could explain why cell phone footage was taken, unlike the 1st twin tower where video was mostly absent. And of course, a few months back, Russia's nuclear triad was struck inside of Russia, and Nudge, who's military knowledge I respect, told me that would be pretty simple to pull off for Ukraine without the need of Western help. I know this is the Kremlin, so obviously that changes things a bit.

Would it be impossible for air defenses to allow a drone to get that close? I can't say, but like you say, it does sound unlikely. I like to remain agnostic about these things though when we have so little information at present. Is it impossible that this was Ukraine? Maybe not. What if the drones took flight while they were already inside of Russian airspace? Even an air defense like the US' could not stop the Pentagon and towers from being smashed into. And remember that old man who landed on the White House lawn I think it was in his quadcopter or whatever it's called, not long ago? This was post 9/11. He wasn't shot down by the US. An insurance policy was taken out on the twin towers right before it happened. Documents were destroyed at the Pentagon that helped them cover up the missing trillions of dollars easier. Conservatives said right before 9/11 that a Pearl Harbour like event would be perfect to carry out their military goals. Despite all of this, I do not believe that the US was involved in the 9/11 attacks against themselves, although there was the news recently that there may have been CIA assets among the 9/11 hijackers, and of course it was confirmed that the 9/11 hijackers were funded by the Saudi government. 


When the 9/11 truthers hear this news, you best bet that this is only going to confirm for them that 9/11 was an inside American job. My point is, we probably shouldn't say we know 100 % what happened, at least at this point. Bringing up things like May 9th and all of that makes sense in a vacuum, but this type of thing could be a coincidence, just like all of those 9/11 coincidences that I pointed out. Coincidences happen constantly, but of course we should keep our guards up and question everything coming from the Russian government.

---

I had thought it obvious that I was offering my own opinion, but since it apparently wasn't understood that way, let me say that I don't know it was a false-flag attack. I wasn't there, didn't sit in on any planning, and so on. So it's my opinion, backed up with some reasoning. Aside from the serendipity of having a couple of videos of an oh-dark-thirty attack, there's also these reasons I think this:

1) with support for the war flagging and dissension in the Russian milblogger community, a staged attack would be useful for drawing Russia together by presenting an "outside" threat and attempted presidential assassination -- rally 'round the flag, you dig?;

2) Haven't seen a word about the Russian general in charge of Moscow's air defenses being sacked for such a dreadful failure to perform his duties to protect the capital and the President, and this in a city ringed by concentric air defenses. We'd also have to assume these drones avoided detection for 800 or so miles if launched from Ukraine;

3) if you've seen the video, in one there's footage of a largish "explosion" above the apex of a dome -- yet the flagpole capping said dome is still standing after the "blast". It looks more like pyrotechnics than actual explosive ordnance. Go to 00:14 in this report to see the video I'm referring to:





The way I see it, there's four possibilities here:

1) It was an actual Ukrainian attack;

2) it was an attack by dissident Russians;

3) it was a false-flag orchestrated by Moscow;

4) it is a complete fabrication with doctored videos.

I think 2) and 3) are most likely, but no group has tried to claim credit for it (which they'd probably do in order to unify the opposition). So I believe 3) is most likely, for the reasons I gave above.

[The Grand Nudger]

What question do you think that answers IA? It only manufactures questions for me. Who is zelenskyy's commander and chief, and why would zelenskyy's commander and chief need to be told such a thing by zelenskyy? A good opportunity for what?

[Irreligious Atheist]

What question do you think that answers IA?  It only manufactures questions for me.  Who is zelenskyy's commander and chief, and why would zelenskyy's commander and chief need to be told such a thing by zelenskyy?  A good opportunity for what?

A good opportunity to kill Russian troops? By bombing them? Your question was if Zenesky wanted to bomb Russia, why isn't he doing it? I gave you the answer. He says he doesn't have the capabilities at present to do what he aims to do, with said weapons, which is why he's going around begging for said weapons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Zelensky is a greater threat to the world than Al Qaeda or ISIS. That was my point. Zelensky wants WWIII.

Well, this is just fucking silly. Don't you think he'd consider WWIII a disaster especially for Ukraine, after it's already been ravaged by almost ten years of Russian invasion?

I'm drawing a blank on the atrocities Zelenskyy has ordered, care to fill us in? Bring evidence.

"Zelensky told his commander and chief that Ukraine does not have long range missiles capable of striking Russian troops deeper inside of Russia nor anything to attack them, suggesting a good opportunity." From the Pentagon Papers, Nudge. Does that answer your question?

Gee, one wonders why he might feel that way.

Oh, right, it's because his country is being ravaged by ... wait for it ... Russians.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sorry, which rule was broken?

Boru

Flaming for no reason after I said nothing to her or did nothing to earn a flaming. Taking the thread off topic from Russia Ukraine to me being a piss ant, and bringing the thread into the mud and hurting the quality of the thread, so forum members get a lower quality thread to read, which I would think would be the exact opposite of what administrators want, but what do I know, right? There's two broken rules. Shall I go on?

It's cool though. She may continue. Just pointing out her hypocrisy. I don't want to report her and like I've said before, it would go against my principles to do so.

I'm unaware of a bringing-the-thread-into-the-mud-rule. We do have a rule against flaming, but that's doesn't seem to be what happened here.

Before you accuse someone of rule breaking, please check the rules first.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

What question do you think that answers IA?  It only manufactures questions for me.  Who is zelenskyy's commander and chief, and why would zelenskyy's commander and chief need to be told such a thing by zelenskyy?  A good opportunity for what?

A good opportunity to kill Russian troops? By bombing them? Your question was if Zenesky wanted to bomb Russia, why isn't he doing it? I gave you the answer. He says he doesn't have the capabilities at present to do what he aims to do, with said weapons, which is why he's going around begging for said weapons.

You think this..means that, and answers some question of mine?

"Zelensky told his commander and chief that Ukraine does not have long range missiles capable of striking Russian troops deeper inside of Russia nor anything to attack them, suggesting a good opportunity."

I don't have any questions about why ukraine isn't throwing everything they have into russia.  I'm impressed with their discipline in not doing so.  We're sitting here talking about them pulling off an alleged drone attack, on the kremlin...too, correct?  

[Irreligious Atheist]

Zelensky is a greater threat to the world than Al Qaeda or ISIS. That was my point. Zelensky wants WWIII.

Well, this is just fucking silly. Don't you think he'd consider WWIII a disaster especially for Ukraine, after it's already been ravaged by almost ten years of Russian invasion?

I'm drawing a blank on the atrocities Zelenskyy has ordered, care to fill us in? Bring evidence.

"Zelensky told his commander and chief that Ukraine does not have long range missiles capable of striking Russian troops deeper inside of Russia nor anything to attack them, suggesting a good opportunity." From the Pentagon Papers, Nudge. Does that answer your question?

Gee, one wonders why he might feel that way.

Oh, right, it's because his country is being ravaged by ... wait for it ... Russians.

Thanks for clearing up your stance about the drone over the Kremlin. You make some very good points, but I don't think I can say I saw pyrotechnics in the video. It looked like it the first time I watched it, but then watching it over and over, it looks less so like pyrotechnics, but like I said before, I'm remaining agnostic at present, but it could be as high as 50-50 for me that this was all just a staged thing by Putin.

And you answered your own question at the bottom of your post. The person who's country is under attack is probably going to be more ok with doing things that may risk WWIII, and justifiably so perhaps, because their country is under attack and they are more desperate. I'm not blaming Zelensky personally as a human being for being panicked, because such is human nature, and he's throwing out some really bad ideas right now about what he might do with bombs in Russia, as internal spy document leaks show, so my problem is more so in the West propping him up, when Zelensky may not be thinking as a completely rational actor right now. Zelensky wouldn't be the threat that he was without us Westerners propping him up, so I'm giving us (the West) the biggest slap on the wrist here with my rhetoric, and Zelensky gets slightly less blame, because he's just using the toys that he's been given.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Flaming for no reason after I said nothing to her or did nothing to earn a flaming. Taking the thread off topic from Russia Ukraine to me being a piss ant, and bringing the thread into the mud and hurting the quality of the thread, so forum members get a lower quality thread to read, which I would think would be the exact opposite of what administrators want, but what do I know, right? There's two broken rules. Shall I go on?

It's cool though. She may continue. Just pointing out her hypocrisy. I don't want to report her and like I've said before, it would go against my principles to do so.

I'm unaware of a bringing-the-thread-into-the-mud-rule. We do have a rule against flaming, but that's doesn't seem to be what happened here.

Before you accuse someone of rule breaking, please check the rules first.

Boru

Have I broken the rules by accusing an administrator of breaking a rule? Is that a rule in itself? I read the forum rules, but it's been a while.

This is what happened. I posted my opinion on Russia Ukraine, and I did not address AWTY or write anything negative about her. Her response was to come in off topic, not mentioning Russia or Ukraine at all, and accusing me of getting a pass from an asylum, which would entail that I'm perhaps deranged and dangerous to society, thus why I've been locked up in the asylum. Pretty big accusation there by her. Not that I care, and I'm cool with any insult as long as I'm not being accused or the big r word. But why do you care enough to respond to me after I've simply defended myself in a civil manner after being called deranged and dangerous to the public by living in an asylum? What is it to you? Do you think females can not defend themselves? Is AWTY not capable of her own catty comeback, without you coming in to save the day, Boru? She's a big girl and she has a brain of her own and she does just fine arguing for herself, so I don't think she needs a white knight. I have enough respect for her to know that she can argue her own points well enough on her own, at least a decent amount of the time.

I just assumed you wouldn't want threads to be dragged down into the gutter and that discussing Russia Ukraine would be of more interest to people than more pages of discussing me being a piss ant. But if taking a thread off topic is not a rule, I stand corrected. Could have sworn I saw that when reading the rules. If you want me to stop calling out AWTY for breaking rules, then please just give me a warning, and I'll know that I'm not allowed to do it any longer.

And I see that we've taken the thread off topic yet again, which means that the thread is going to be filled with more of this rather than actual Russia Ukraine discussion. Fantastic. See what I mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

Crazy Zelenskyy, just blowing up apartments in moscow over here.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Crazy Zelenskyy, just blowing up apartments in moscow over here.

So, just as a hypothetical, if Zelensky says he wants to genocide all of the Jews in the world, you're cool with it because it's just a hypothetical in his mind that he doesn't have the power to carry out? Is that the argument you've just made? It's cool that he wants to drag us into WWIII, because he might not currently have the full capacity to do so, and because he's not blowing up Russian apartments, all is well? Don't think that's quite how things work in the real world.