MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
War on Terrorism (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 106, 107, 108  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm not so sure. If it was an actual terrorist then maybe so but I can't think of any terrorist affiliation that would be attracted to Ukraine vs Russia. Since we can presumably rule out an accident on too-coincidental grounds, that leaves state actors. And that leaves either Ukraine and/or USA. Neither of them are in the suicide IED business. Politically, it would be suicide!

And what about forensics?
(a) there must be bits of the driver hanging around unless it was a Navy Seal-style operation
(b) there must be photos of the driver taken by various cameras on the way to, at and on the bridge.

Also don't forget the train conveniently passing by at the very time of the explosion. What are the chances of that? Though everyone's forgotten that the entire operation has held up Russian logistics for all of a day.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Russia is routinely branded a terrorist state (aka committing war crimes) because she fires missiles at Ukrainian 'civilian' targets. As I have pointed out many times, this is not the action of a terrorist state or a war crime, it is the action of every state at war. There are no civilians when a state is at war, civilians are the state. That is what war is. Every state has the choice to cease to be at war at any time.

Russia is also routinely reported as running out of missiles. We should sell her some more. Here's why. The recent barrage, fired as a reprisal for blowing up the Crimean bridge, cost Russia between 400 and 700 million dollars. It killed (maybe) a coupla dozen Ukrainian civilians. It did some trifling (relatively, catastrophic locally) damage to buildings including (according to the Russians) to some military assets. Since Ukraine does not seem to be much inclined to pull out of the war because of missile damage -- all the evidence points to the exact opposite -- then Russia will run out of money long before Ukraine runs out of civilians, buildings and military assets.

So why does Russia persist with this ruinous policy? A clue was in the Al-Jazeera wrap last night. After a tour round recently destroyed parts of some provincial town, there was footage of a ickle blonde poppet, then a still of her mother, a doctor at the local hospital, whereupon the hushed reverent voice-over told us (to the effect), "But she will never see her mummy again."

As Clausewitz nearly said, "War is hearts-and-minds by other means."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Russia is running out of precision missiles, advanced tech, and elite troops, so will need to replace these with less precise missiles, less advanced tech and less trained troops. The Russian counterattack is therefore going to need to be based on heavier shelling (thank you for your shells North Korea) and many more troops "going over the top". I keep on telling Vlad that this "clever,clever" stuff won't work. But he is convinced he is a master 3D chess player....so it's a spiffing plan of joint military exercises with Belarus, a second feint.....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The explosion at the Kerch Bridge was by any sensible description, terrorist.


No. It is not a terrorist attack. This misuse of language is as unforgivable as it is widespread.

A terror attack is designed to sow terror---it targets civilians and is, by design, intended to kill as many non-combatants as is possible. The attack on the bridge is an act of guerrilla warfare or sabotage.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You tell him, Ishmael. This is 'just a war' like any other. Leaving aside whether it's a just war. Actually a spot of terrorism would be entirely justified if this were an asymmetric war (as per the French Resistance, aided and abetted by the British). But Ukraine hasn't got that excuse.

Maybe soon the Russians will have. It's an interesting question: do nukes count as terrorism?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bombs and incendiaries count as terrorist yes. Of course. If the primary target is civilians and the intention is to break the will of the civilian population. That is the definition of a terror attack.

When the targets are military or infrastructure, these are not terror attacks by definition. Blurring these distinctions only makes terrorism more acceptable.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No, I think you're getting your definitions wrong. In the Second World War there was something called 'terror bombing' whose aim was to break the will of the civilian population. But it was a misnomer. All wars are fought until one side or the other does not have the will to continue and the US/UK planners figured that this could be achieved if the German population could see they would eventually have nothing left. They would not be terrified, they would rather be resigned in a WTF sort of way.

Though actually the two air forces came up with this idea when they discovered they could only destroy civilian housing, not German war production (or indeed productive German people). And they knew full well it wouldn't be the civilian population that chose when it was time to stop fighting the war.

What 'terrorism' is follows...
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well the best guess remains it was an IED detonated remotely, after a bomb was smuggled onto a Russian truck. It was driven by the Russian owners' uncle, undertaking their normal delivery along a Russian bridge into Crimea.

It might just have been a missile attack, but that would mean that much more advanced long range American missiles are in the possession of Ukraine than the Americans are admitting.

Don't get me wrong, Russia has done much worse, and continues to do so, with waves of Kamikaze drones.... But this surely meets the definition of an attack primarly designed to create terror.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well the best guess remains it was an IED detonated remotely, after a bomb was smuggled onto a Russian truck. It was driven by the the Russian owners' uncle, undertaking their normal delivery along a Russian bridge into Crimea.

So lots of IED's were smuggled onto lots of Russian trucks until one of them happened to coincide with a train coming the other way?

Don't get me wrong, Russia has done much worse, and continues to do so, with waves of Kamikaze drones.... But this surely meets the definition of an attack primarly designed to create terror.

I think you are getting it wrong. Even the Ukrainians have been admitting that the drones took out, or were near, major infrastructure targets. When you're using multimillion dollar ordinance and you haven't got many of them, you'd be crazy to take out a block of flats (one man and a dog killed) and hope that Ukrainians will give up 'in terror'. Crazy Ivan is a naval submarine tactic not an airforce drone one.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
No, I think you're getting your definitions wrong.


I think you are correct.

Part of the definition must be that there is no declared war---or no official state action.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Don't get legalistic on us.

Al-Qaeda: We declare war on the United States of America.
Americans: Oh, OK, bombs away.

Al-Qaeda: We are a Caliphate.
Americans: Oh, OK, bombs away.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Well the best guess remains it was an IED detonated remotely, after a bomb was smuggled onto a Russian truck. It was driven by the the Russian owners' uncle, undertaking their normal delivery along a Russian bridge into Crimea.

So lots of IED's were smuggled onto lots of Russian trucks until one of them happened to coincide with a train coming the other way?



There is an interesting overview of the various theories here. https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/the-cause-of-the-crimea-bridge-explosion

I am not convinced that the idea was to explode the van, so as to also hit a fuel train, even if that was the final result.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley, you are breaking about eleven (i.e. twelve) AEL rules. If you want us to know the main theories, list 'em, don't make us sit through a YouTube. If you are not convinced about something you won't convince us by telling us you're not convinced about it. If your conviction appears to be directly linked to something that is necessary for something you are arguing the toss about then we will be convinced you should be convicted of gross dereliction of duty. However I will provide the usual ten point model answer to assist you if you get off with a suspended sentence

1. The bridge is [fill in figure] long
2. The part that is overwater is [fill in lesser figure]
3. The average speed of lorries and trains crossing the bridge is [fill in two figures]
4.. Therefore the time lorries and trains spend on (2] is [fill in two figures]
5. The speed of lorries and trains crossing the bridge is [fill in two figures]
6. The number of trains crossing the bridge is [fill in figure]
7. Therefore the probability of a given lorry coinciding with any train at (2) is [fill in quite small percentage]
8. However I am not convinced that this was intended
9. But I am not going to say why
10. The number of days I am free to attend an AE retraining course is [fill in figure].
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Guilty as charged.

1) If this was an attempt to destroy Russian logistics. They would attack the railway line, directly. Because that is how, in the main, Russian is supplying its S.M.O. by use of Railways.
2) If the argument is that they could not attack the railway line by missiles as they were out of range, then you might try to attack via the bridge carrying the civilian transport, but the chances of exploding a truck to ignite a moving fuel train, on a different bridge, appear to Wiles remote.
3) My conclusion is that they, the partisans according to Ish, were attempting to attack the only realistic target, the road bridge, but in doing so, the fire from the explosion set off a secondary explosion on a stationary train, on the rail bridge.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Let's dispose of the idea that it was an attack on Russian logistics. The British and Americans mounted sustained programmes involving thousands of aircraft to disrupt, successively, the railways in German-occupied Italy and France. They couldn't do it in Germany itself because such campaigns require daylight bombing without much in the way of opposition aircraft or triple-A. They couldn't do it in Italy or France either because it take ten minutes to re-route stuff and ten hours to repair stuff. It took the Russians ten hours to repair the Crimea bridge.

So, it was a demonstration. A spectacular. A one-off. A 'look what we can do, twatty-features'. Similar to the taking out of the Moskva. (Or, if you like, the Dambusters' Raid.) And very successful it was too. Headlines round the world, even in Russia. And, unlike the Dambusters, the success was compounded by the Russians carrying out spiteful reprisals -- which also went round the world. 'Bad sports, what?"

None of the above solves the 'how'. Except to say it was worth Ukraine putting major efforts into it or -- if it was US Navy Seals -- calling in major favours. Definitely not partisans though. Partisans do habitually blow up railways, that is mostly all they do. Normally about fifty feet of track, at the dead of night, in the back of beyond, using a satchel bomb. But the Crimea bridge?

"What shall we do ce soir, Pierre?"
"What about ze Eiffel Tower?"
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 106, 107, 108  Next

Jump to:  
Page 76 of 108

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group