April 3, 2017

"Explosions at two subway stations in St. Petersburg killed at least 10 people on Monday afternoon, as President Vladimir V. Putin was in the city..."

10 have died at "at least 50" others are wounded.

40 comments:

tim in vermont said...

The Democrats are seeking revenge for Hillary's loss of face.

traditionalguy said...

The Religion of Peace is going down fighting. I for one am on the Russian's side. They are Orthodox Christians. And so is Putin The Terrible..

glenn said...

Actually if Putin does what he has said he was going to do in the event of an ISIS attack on a Russian city we will know soon enough. My advice would be to stay the hell out of the way

Jim Gust said...

Is it smart for ISIS to claim credit so quickly? Putin will not be timid with his response.

gspencer said...

This just in from the wire services which are on site.

This blast and the murdering of non-Muslims have nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with Islam. Islam, it bears repeating, is a religion of peace (even though the word Islam translates into "submission").

Watch here for future reports which will of course confirm that these killings had nothing to do with Islam.

In the meantime representatives of ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and others will be accompanying officials from CAIR on a chartered plane to make sure that there is no black lash against Muslims. Dougie Hooper was quoted, as he boarded, "Even though there has never been any sort of black lash, protecting Islam and Muslims is our highest priority. Even before the needs of victims."

Fernandinande said...

That's what they get for going around influencing elections.

rhhardin said...

They'll have to monitor one-way metrorail pass cash purchases.

jaydub said...

Stopping there for a couple of days on a Baltic cruise this July. Hopefully the Ruskies will have hunted down and filleted the Islamofascist perpetrators by then, but in the meantime I hope the Democrats and the press don't neglect the opportunity to hang this around Trump's neck. It would make about as much sense as the rest of their propaganda campaign, and Inga and Chuck really need some new material.

mockturtle said...

Mr. Putin, in deploying the Russian military to Syria in September 2015, said the move was meant to take the fight to Islamic radicals before they brought it home. Once deployed, however, the Russians concentrated more on shoring up the government of President Bashar al-Assad than in attacking the Islamic State.

Duh. Shoring up Assad's government is attacking the Islamic State.

Michael K said...

Let's bring in more Muslim "children" for Inga to adopt,.

exiledonmainstreet said...

In the meantime representatives of ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and others will be accompanying officials from CAIR on a chartered plane to make sure that there is no black lash against Muslims. Dougie Hooper was quoted, as he boarded, "Even though there has never been any sort of black lash, protecting Islam and Muslims is our highest priority. Even before the needs of victims."

As Mark Steyn noted, CAIR is concerned about protecting Muslims from backlash from next week's terrorist attack.

Robert Cook said...

"Duh. Shoring up Assad's government is attacking the Islamic State."

Kinda makes one wonder why we're trying to oust the Assad government.

Bob Boyd said...

Hopefully Putin won't announce, "ISIS wants to increase their stature by taking credit, but our intelligence has proven it was the Lithuanians."

Larry J said...

jaydub said...
Stopping there for a couple of days on a Baltic cruise this July.


I visited there last September. Spectacular city. I'm not particularly an art lover but the Hermitage is fantastic.

As for this attack, Russia is not known for halfway measures or pussyfooting around. Look for some big bombing attacks on ISIS strongholds. Russia traditionally isn't overly bothered by collateral civilian casualties. They may also do some clandestine ground operations, too. Those can also get really messy. Putin is no Obama when it comes to payback.

mockturtle said...

Kinda makes one wonder why we're trying to oust the Assad government.

I know, Cookie. Doesn't make sense, does it? But, then, none of our foreign policy makes sense.

mockturtle said...

Russia traditionally isn't overly bothered by collateral civilian casualties.

While we somehow managed to A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any collateral damage. Didn't we?

dwick said...

mockturtle said 4/3/17, 11:18 AM...

While we somehow managed to A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any collateral damage. Didn't we?


And we've got a vocal band of navel-gazers across the US still wringing their hands about it via articles, lectures, books, movies, comments in blog posts, etc 70+ years later - even after the US spent untold millions of dollars and resources helping them rebuild their country. All while there's very little if any such introspection in Russia concerning all the hideous Soviet WWII atrocities in Germany and Poland - not to mention all the people that died under Cold War Soviet repression.

mockturtle said...

Dwick, I certainly wasn't 'wringing my hands' over Hiroshima. I believe it was the right decision to bring an end to the war. It's just that I hate hypocrisy.

Larry J said...

mockturtle said 4/3/17, 11:18 AM...

While we somehow managed to A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any collateral damage. Didn't we?


In WWII, all sides didn't give a damn about collateral damage. The Germans didn't care how many civilians they killed during the Blitz. The British and the US didn't care about civilian casualties when we bombed Germany (see: Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin for just a few examples). Likewise, the Japanese didn't care about inflicting civilian casualties when they invaded other countries, especially China. We didn't care about killing Japanese civilians, either. Total war is a terrible thing, best to be avoided.

Russia's swift and harsh reputation isn't limited to the "Great Patriotic War", as they call WWII. Try reading up on their military history. Hell, look at some of their actions against Chechens. ISIS just pissed off the bear. A pissed off bear is a dangerous and powerful thing.

Michael K said...

Dwick, I certainly wasn't 'wringing my hands' over Hiroshima. I believe it was the right decision to bring an end to the war.

The alternative might have been the Navy plan to just starve the Japanese population to death.

We could have done it.

mockturtle said...

Michael K, that's right. We could have. Good grief, most people living in Tokyo were already near starvation. But the Japanese started it. We finished it. War is hell.

Robert Cook said...

"'Kinda makes one wonder why we're trying to oust the Assad government.'

"I know, Cookie. Doesn't make sense, does it? But, then, none of our foreign policy makes sense."


It doesn't make sense if we assume they're telling us the truth about why our foreign policy is as it is. But they're not. We're not trying save anybody or "bring freedom" to anyone. We will play entities against each other, even it if gives an advantage to those we call "enemies," such as the Islamic extremists. We're playing a power game where we seek to destabilize and neutralize whatever other sovereign national powers we see as impediments to our goal: world domination. We hope to defeat/neutralize China and Russia as competitors for global dominance. We're trying to grab all the world's resources for ourselves. (When I say "we," I mean the corporate/military/intelligence complex that is our government.)

Robert Cook said...

"mockturtle said 4/3/17, 11:18 AM...

"While we somehow managed to A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any collateral damage. Didn't we?"


????? It was all collateral damage!

Larry J said:

"In WWII, all sides didn't give a damn about collateral damage. The Germans didn't care how many civilians they killed during the Blitz. The British and the US didn't care about civilian casualties when we bombed Germany (see: Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin for just a few examples). Likewise, the Japanese didn't care about inflicting civilian casualties when they invaded other countries, especially China. We didn't care about killing Japanese civilians, either. Total war is a terrible thing, best to be avoided."

This is the truth of war. Which is why it is criminal for any nation to initiate an aggressive war. One cannot control the killing once war is unleashed, so one must refrain from engaging in war except where self-defense provides no other alternative.

mockturtle said...

????? It was all collateral damage!

Cookie, don't you know sarcasm when you see it? That was my whole point.

Robert Cook said...

Oh, mockturtle, I see you were being ironic.

Nonetheless, there were other methods available to end the war without nuking two cities full of civilians, the greatest acts of terrorism in modern history. A number of U.S. military generals were opposed to the use of nukes and did not think it necessary.

tim in vermont said...

None of the damage from those bombings was collateral. Cookie apparently thinks the Japanese Empire should have won. He's not against war, he is on the other side.

mockturtle said...

But, Robert, the Japanese brass admitted that they would have used nukes if they had access to them.

tim in vermont said...

The famine your precious commies unleashed on the Ukraine was pretty bad, but I am sure that, and fellow comrade Pol Pot's killing fields, Japanese rape camps, etc. Just slipped your mind.

tim in vermont said...

Mock, you are trying to reason him out of a position he didn't reason himself into. He decided what he thought first by knee jerk, then sought rationalizations.

mockturtle said...

Cookie asserts: We hope to defeat/neutralize China and Russia as competitors for global dominance. We're trying to grab all the world's resources for ourselves. (When I say "we," I mean the corporate/military/intelligence complex that is our government.)

This may be true but let me ask you this: If any country is going to 'grab all the world's resources', would you prefer it be Russia or China? As always, your argument is for the idealized view of global peace and prosperity. If only the US would quit meddling, then the lions would lie down with the lambs and all would be well. There are worse things, Cookie, than American hegemony.

Robert Cook said...

"But, Robert, the Japanese brass admitted that they would have used nukes if they had access to them."

So...are we to justify our own behavior because those we label as "barbarians" would behave in such ways? I thought we were the "exceptional" country! How can we be exceptional if we are as base as those we call depraved?

And...as pointed out, many of our own military leaders objected to the use of nukes and consider their influence on our victory to have been nonexistent or negligible. I think it is very likely, as has been hypothesized, that our use of nukes was really intended to impress (intimidate) Russia with our power.

Robert Cook said...

"...let me ask you this: If any country is going to 'grab all the world's resources', would you prefer it be Russia or China? As always, your argument is for the idealized view of global peace and prosperity. If only the US would quit meddling, then the lions would lie down with the lambs and all would be well. There are worse things, Cookie, than American hegemony."

American hegemony cannot be accomplished without ruinous consequences for vast swaths of humanity (and the rest of the natural world). We need to try to work cooperatively with the other world powers to ensure survival of the human race and the ecosphere. This is not about "idealized...peace and prosperity" but about survival. Our present course can only lead to conflict, war, and global devastation.

mockturtle said...

We need to try to work cooperatively with the other world powers

Not idealized? When has this ever happened? What are the chances of it ever happening?

tim in vermont said...

When the Berlin Wall fell, we learned what fine environmental stewards the commies were, and China is a beacon on a hill. And if you want to find a country full of starvation and oppression, free market liberal democracies are the place to look!

Robert Cook said...

"Not idealized? When has this ever happened? What are the chances of it ever happening?"

The chances are zero if it is never tried.

We did work together in WWII to defeat the Axis powers. Also, I was under the impression that we were allies of both China and Russia, to the extent we had a working relationship with both of them. All of a sudden, in the past couple of years or so, Russia is suddenly "the Red Menace" all over again! Why? It was a shift that happened in the dark, overnight! In time, this will shift to China, or will expand to include China. It's all being driven by our agenda. The war economy is impoverishing our country and turning us into a military garrison domestically, with local police departments defacto military outposts in most of America's cities and towns.

mockturtle said...

Cookie, I will certainly agree that the global enemy of civilization is neither Russia nor China. It is radical Islam.

But make no mistake: Neither Russia nor China will demilitarize. Nor will North Korea, voluntarily.

gerry said...

Russia is suddenly "the Red Menace" all over again! Why? It was a shift that happened in the dark

Obama arranged the switch. It is part of Progressives' attempts to delegitimize the Trump presidency.

By the way, is that guy Susan Rice, Hillary and Obama trotted out as the cause for the Benghazi murders still available as a scapegoat for Islamistic outrage? I mean, just in case.

Robert Cook said...

"Obama arranged the switch. It is part of Progressives' attempts to delegitimize the Trump presidency."


Hmmm...you seem under the misimpression that "Democrats" = "progressives."

Present day Democrats are just Republicans with a more refined facade.

Robert Cook said...

"But make no mistake: Neither Russia nor China will demilitarize. Nor will North Korea, voluntarily."

Who's expecting them to demilitarize? After all, we won't demilitarize, and we spend more on our war budget than these three countries combined! But we do need to seek to work with them. (I don't know if that's possible with North Korea, but they're a minor player. It's the relations between China, Russia and the U.S. that must not fray to a point that leads to war.)

mockturtle said...

Cookie, I would wholeheartedly support our working with Russia and China to defeat ISIS. Both have experience with terrorists. China has provinces that are majority Muslim and are causing disturbances and Russia has long been embattled by Islamic extremists. The EU should work with us, too, but they still have their collective heads up their butts too far to see the seeds of their own destruction.