• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine strikes Kerch bridge in Crimea with underwater explosives

Hamish Howl said:
Had.

They had plenty. They also lost T22Ms (which they cannot replace), T222s (which they cannot replace) , A50s (which they cannot replace) and T120s and IL76s (which they can replace slowly).
Click to expand...
The only concrete confirmed losses I’ve seen are Bears? Where are you getting all those?
 
Tigerace117 said:
The “official government” of France wasn’t signing off on the French Resistance’s attacks, but that doesn’t make their military strikes “terrorism”.
Click to expand...
Technically many attacks by "resistance" or "revolutionary" forces can/could be considered acts of terrorism depending on many factors. The rebels of the revolutionary War in the US committed many acts of terrorism during the fight, especially against tories and/or when committed by those who weren't actually Soldiers. There's an episode of Star Trek TNG that actually talks about this, High Ground. Had we lost the War, the vast majority of the rebels would have been either executed or imprisoned.

But I didn't say that all acts committed by non-government forces are acts of terrorism though.

I said that acts committed by official government forces that would not be considered acts of terrorism, even if they could be considered acts of terrorism when committed by nongovernment forces.
 
Juks said:
After the attack on Russian bombers, today the SBU struck the Crimean Bridge with over 1,000 kilograms of explosives placed underwater. In a video published by the SBU, a large explosion can be seen occurring in the water beneath the bridge.


www.euronews.com

Ukraine strikes Kerch bridge in Crimea with underwater explosives

Kyiv has hit the Kerch bridge in Crimea, illegally built by Russia after the unilateral annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukraine’s Security Service released the video of the attack, showing the explosion underwater.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

😍
Click to expand...

I am just so impressed with the Ukrainians. They are so amazing. They make me so proud. They are a free people who have such extraordinary courage. They exemplify everything Americans love. I don't know why Trump would ever turn his back on people who would make such wonderful allies.
 
Juks said:
After the attack on Russian bombers, today the SBU struck the Crimean Bridge with over 1,000 kilograms of explosives placed underwater. In a video published by the SBU, a large explosion can be seen occurring in the water beneath the bridge.


www.euronews.com

Ukraine strikes Kerch bridge in Crimea with underwater explosives

Kyiv has hit the Kerch bridge in Crimea, illegally built by Russia after the unilateral annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukraine’s Security Service released the video of the attack, showing the explosion underwater.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

😍
Click to expand...

WOOOOOOOOHOOO!!

Bring that baby DOWN!
 
roguenuke said:
Technically many attacks by "resistance" or "revolutionary" forces can/could be considered acts of terrorism depending on many factors. The rebels of the revolutionary War in the US committed many acts of terrorism during the fight, especially against tories and/or when committed by those who weren't actually Soldiers. There's an episode of Star Trek TNG that actually talks about this, High Ground. Had we lost the War, the vast majority of the rebels would have been either executed or imprisoned.

But I didn't say that all acts committed by non-government forces are acts of terrorism though.

I said that acts committed by official government forces that would not be considered acts of terrorism, even if they could be considered acts of terrorism when committed by nongovernment forces.
Click to expand...
It sounds like “terrorism” is a throughly meaningless term then in general.
 
Tigerace117 said:
It is an attack which 100 percent would be declared terrorism if it happened to the U.S., as I’ve already shown.
Click to expand...
But the US is not in a state of war, so your whole premise is absurd, you are not dealing with reality, you are operating on a fantasy.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So yes, as mentioned, such strikes were indeed morally dubious. Glad we’ve established that.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained how? People's moral qualms is their own. Such strikes serve a Military purpose or strategy. Typical war stuff.
 
Last edited:
Gordy327 said:
You still haven't explained how? People's morajgdl qualms is their own. Such strikes serve a Military purpose or strategy. Typical war stuff.
Click to expand...
Because they killed vast numbers of innocent civilians, and because, for example, doing the exact same thing as Germany had in the Blitz made lots of people—even those in command of said operations—uncomfortable.
 
I THOUGHT UKRAINE DID NOT HAVE ANY CARDS!!!!!!

HAHAHAHA
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because they killed vast numbers of innocent civilians, and because, for example, doing the exact same thing as Germany had in the Blitz made lots of people—even those in command of said operations—uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
As i said, people's moral qualms is their own. When one is fighting a war, what matters is winning the war.
Tigerace117 said:
The U.S. hasn’t cared about “freedom” in decades, if ever.
Click to expand...
Neither has Russia. What about Russian misdeeds? Or is that ok?
 
Tigerace117 said:
It is an attack which 100 percent would be declared terrorism if it happened to the U.S., as I’ve already shown.
Click to expand...
It could be deemed that terrorism or an act of war or simply a strategic attack, if we were the ones that invaded another country, and that country was simply fighting back, officially.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because they killed vast numbers of innocent civilians, and because, for example, doing the exact same thing as Germany had in the Blitz made lots of people—even those in command of said operations—uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
How many were killed by this? Do you have a link?
 
Tigerace117 said:
A bombing attack on a bridge isn’t considered terrorism? Since when?

If the Mexican military tried to take out a bridge the U.S. was using to funnel troops into their country in a couple years, do you actually think that wouldn’t be called “terrorism”?
Click to expand...

Dual use infrastructure can be targeted under international law.

And it’s funny, I never you see you poke your head into threads where the topic is Russia deliberating targeting Ukrainian civilians.
 
Fledermaus said:
Drunk Soviet ruler = Irrelevant as it was agreed to long after.
Click to expand...
No it is very relevant. The state of Ukraine and its borders is a construct of the Soviet Union. Hence what that drunk ruler did is very relevant. The borders of Ukraine today is built across genocide, the fancies of Soviet leaders and in total disregard of the ethnic populations on the ground... very colonial of the Soviet Union... Western Ukraine with the city of Lviv was part of Poland for almost 1000 years, but thanks Ukrainian nationalists during WW2.. the native Poles in the city and the whole region were butchered while under Nazi control after the Soviets had annexed the area in 1939 and the Nazis invaded. So yes it is very relevant.. because Polish nationalists have been moaning about it for years.. wanting back old Polish areas in Belarus and Ukraine....

Fledermaus said:
Here is a lie. "And before people say but but Crimea is Ukrainian. It was never Ukrainian and never will be"
Click to expand...
Again.. go look at an election map (2010 and back) from before the uprising in 2014. Crimea consistently elected pro-Russian candidates and selected the "Russian" candidate by 75%+. Only Donetsk, Luhansk and the city of Sevastopol had higher % voting for "Russian" presidential candidates than Crimea.. and what regions started the rebellion in? ohhh lets see.

So yes, it has never been Ukrainian, and never will be. It has been Russian, Polish-Lithuanian, Ottoman, Genoese, Mongol (various versions), Byzantine/Roman, Tatar.. but never ever Ukrainian people been there in any large numbers and only because of one drunk Soviet leader, was it transferred to the soviet made up "Ukrainian Republic" in the 1950s.

A peace deal of any sort, will have to tackle not only current day problems, but many of those problems are the result of issues created by the Nazi-Soviet alliance, the Soviet Union and even the freaking Czar before that. History can NOT be ignored in this case.. that is just a fact.
 
Gordy327 said:
As i said, people's moral qualms is their own. When one is fighting a war, what matters is winning the war.

Neither has Russia. What about Russian misdeeds? Or is that ok?
Click to expand...
Shrieks of “Russia Russia Russia” have been used to defend the worst atrocities in America history. “But Russia” is a wail that has no merit, on any level.

And considering World War Two’s strategic bombing campaigns were considerably more brutal than anything done today, that stance only further demonstrates my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom