A Rebuttal

On April 6, Mr. Roberts posted a link to a video that attempted to portray the bombing of the maternity hospital as some sort of “false flag” operation. This piece from The Bulwark puts the lie to Mr. Roberts’ assertion.

I will be curious to read what folks have to say about the debunking of Mr. Roberts’ “truth”.

51 thoughts on “A Rebuttal

  1. RE: “I will be curious to read what folks have to say about the debunking of Mr. Roberts’ ‘truth’.”

    What do you think you and The Bulwark have debunked?

    I shared the video to show that allegations that Russia bombed the maternity hospital were questionable. They remain questionable.

    Like

    1. These were your closing words on the post. “I must say, however, that any hint of Western journalists willfully telling false stories is worrisome.”

      They do NOT remain questionable. Your Putin propaganda is laid to waste and it pisses you off.

      Your continuation of spreading the Russian lies and then trying to backtrack and claim that you are only doing so for conversation is the biggest piece of bullshit since the Big Lie of the 202 election being stolen from TFG.. Oh, wait. You still believe in that bullshit, too.

      Meadows is guilty of voter fraud. I doubt he voted for Bien.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. It wasn’t the Ukrainians, as the Kremlin claimed and YOU supported. And I don’t believe the Chinese are involved, nor Syrian forces that could have done this (They hadn’t been called in yet.)

          What evidence do you have that it WASN’T the Russians?

          Common sense, which you seem too have lost sight of, tells anyone with a brain that isn’t diluted by Putin propaganda, knows it was the Russians. Unless it was some OTHER country that is attacking Ukraine for the past 7-plus weeks.

          Sometimes you just have to believe your lyin’ eyes.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “What evidence do you have that it WASN’T the Russians?”

          I interpreted Vyshemirskaya’s account of events in the video I posted as her saying that Ukrainians had bombed the hospital. Your source says that Vyshemirskaya only refuted that the bombing occurred as the result of an air strike. I’m OK with that and admit my interpretation may have been wrong.

          Here’s the puzzle for you solve: According to your own source, Russia originally claimed Vyshemirskaya was just a crisis actor and her account was fake. I claim she is telling the truth as best she can as a true eyewitness in a war zone. How can I be both supporting Russian propaganda and refuting it at the same time?.

          Like

          1. “I interpreted…”

            Well then there it is. YOUR interpretations are the only legitimate ones and only YOU can determine truth.

            Your interpretation is based on your pro-Putin view of the attack on a PEACEFUL, NON-THREATENING neighbor.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “What do you think you and The Bulwark have debunked?”
      They have thoroughly debunked any possibility that Lavrov was telling the truth about the incident.

      “They remain questionable.”
      No, they do not.
      The ONLY unanswered question is – was it a deliberate part of the ongoing Russian terror campaign or was it a tragic accident?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. OK, then, give us your positive evidence that shows Russia bombed the maternity hospital that was the subject of the video.

        Like

          1. My evidence is that the young lady in video tells a different story than the one the AP journalists told. That is sufficient for me to say that the AP story is questionable.

            Like

          2. The video actors are lying. Now your job is to prove they are right. Just saying so is not enough.

            Putin has a history of blowing up civilians, hospitals, homes in Aleppo, other Syrian towns, Chechnya’s Grozny. He has murdered opposition leaders. He has shut down all journalists except those fakes you have posted.

            Like the scorpion and the frog tale , it is his nature.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The lady is lying! How hard is it for you to see that? The Bulwark article laid it out.

            And the author of the piece is an Editor for Reason Magazine, the LIBERTARIAN publication.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “My evidence is that the young lady in video tells a different story…”

            So AP reports are questionable, but not hers?

            As is oft stated, propaganda is designed to sow doubt. Repetition and made up “facts” (“alternative” as some dip wad in the last administration loved to say) eventually gives credence to totally fabricated stories. Even if all is a big lie, the “possibility” of another “side” to a story is more than enough to convince the gullible.

            This is almost a mirror image of the Big Lie, only this time our enemy is not our own president.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Putin has a history of blowing up civilians…”

            So do U.S. presidents. What’s your point?

            Like

          6. RE: “The lady is lying!”

            The Bulwark doesn’t say so. It says her video has been used for propaganda.

            Like

          7. You know better than to ask someone to prove a negative. That is classic catch 22 that can’t be done. So, to be fair, prove you aren’t a fag, ok?

            Like

          8. …”prove you aren’t a fag,”…

            I am a living human being, not a British cigarette. 😇

            As for your hateful, homophobic question,my answer to you is prove YOU aren’t a closet homosexual with predatory tendencies towards small farm animals.

            Like

          9. “So, to be fair, prove you aren’t a fag, ok?”

            Once again you share with everyone where your psyche dwells. Did you not read the link I shared with you a few weeks back that reports the more virulent the homophobia the more powerful the latent homosexual desire? You like bare-chested men on horseback? No need to answer.

            Your rebuttal is wrong. In this case, the negative is easily proven. There are only two possibilities. Either Russia attacked the hospital (as it said it did at the UN) or the hospital was attacked by Ukraine. So, the evidence to prove that Russia did not do it can be clearly stated – provide evidence that it was done by Ukraine.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. If you are quibbling about whether it was bombs, rockets or artillery shells that flattened the hospital, then knock yourself out. The indisputable facts are that it was attacked, people were killed and wounded, and it was not a legitimate military target. Russia has already admitted that it was THEY that attacked it. What more evidence do you think you need?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Russia has already admitted that it was THEY that attacked it.”

            I debunked that already in another thread. On March 10, the day after the attack, Russia denied attacking the hospital, and to my my knowledge they have stuck to that denial ever since.

            Like

          2. “I debunked that already in another thread.”

            You have debunked nothing. Lavrov admitted to the UN that Russia attacked a military target at the hospital. A target that did not exist. I have provided you with video of him doing so. If they are changing their story now because the first one did not hold water, you would have to be very eager to be fooled to believe their new story. Of course, that describes your attitude perfectly.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I see no proof either way, it comes down to which propaganda machine you choose too believe.

    My position remains the same, Russia is going to get what it wants, and efforts to change that only increase the deaths of soldiers and civilians.

    Like

    1. “I see no proof either way”…

      So the hospital just blew up all by itself? That’s news to me. Unless of course the weapons that weren’t there magically caught on fire.

      …”Russia is going to get what it wants”…

      Russia wants Finland and Sweden to join NATO? News to me.

      Russia wanted their flagship in the Black Sea to sink after being hit by two missiles fired by the Ukrainians? Hell of a way to get a new cruiser built.

      Russia wants the Ukrainian people to completely turn their backs on the Russian brothers and sisters? Now THAT’S a Family Feud.

      Russia wanted to capture Kyiv. They were thwarted and are now reverting to their scorched Earth, war crime based destruction of the capital.

      Your calls for Ukraine to roll over and play dead seem pretty antithetical to someone who portends to believe in the Rule of Law and democracy. I suppose if Canada decided to invade the Dakotas, you would say let them have them. (And I still cannot fathom why we need TWO Dakotas. (My emojis aren’t coming up; insert recognized sarcasm emoji here.))

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You are confused as to what Russia wants.

        Tactical steps are not strategic goals.

        Russia, from the beginning, wanted the breakaway regions in the Donbas recognized as independent. It wanted Ukraine permanently out of NATO and it wanted to deNazifi Ukraine.

        Right now, posturing aside, NATO wouldn’t touch Ukraine with tongs. The deNazification is well underway, there aren’t many of the Azov paramilitaries left alive. And the separation of the Donbas will be complete in a couple of weeks.

        All that our cheerleading and arming will have done is increased what could have been negligible civilian and military deaths(other than the Azovs) to tens of thousands.

        In the end, the warmongering cheerleaders will have a lot of blood on their hands.

        Like

        1. “In the end, the warmongering cheerleaders will have a lot of blood on their hands.”

          Thanks for the report from your Bizarro universe where everything is backwards. In this universe, the people with blood on their hands are those who start wars and fight them with terror tactics and war crimes.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. There is plenty of blood to go around.

            Those who encourage people to fight a war they cannot win, when a peaceful alternative is available, are culpable as well.

            It is one thing to root for the underdog when war is inevitable, but when the outcome is certain, then root for cpmpromise ad peace.

            Like

          2. Yadda Yadda Yadda

            I am rooting for democracy over fascism. It is clear whom you favor. Unlike you, I have never suggested what the Ukrainians SHOULD do. And unlike you, I do not equate the obvious lies emanating from Moscow with the truth being reported by journalists.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “ The deNazification is well underway, there aren’t many of the Azov paramilitaries left alive.”

          So you believe that Ukraine was a Nazi state?

          There were some remnants of extreme right wing nationalists (like our gangs here you are so proud of) in the military. And you really believed that would be a justifiable excuse to invade an entire nation?

          Putin is a corrupt butcher and he picked the wrong fight in the wrong neighborhood with a military he thought was better but the billions for it have been stolen by him and his oligarchs.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Do you have evidence of that as a matter of policy? Or just the results of a war toughened battalion that may have attracted some ultra-nationalists early on.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “ …act against ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country.”

            You mean Russian separatists and military as supported and supplied by Russia.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Or were those so-called Nazis fighting back against the butchery of the Wagner Group sent by Putin to terrorize and murder Ukrainians? The so-called Nazis were at least fighting on their own soil.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. Supporting a country defending itself from a belligerent neighbor, attacking it for no other reason than to reestablish the old Russian empire, take over oil reserves and control the ports from which those reserves can be shipped to the open market to line the pockets of Putin and his oligarch cronies is NOT about warmongering. In your mind maybe it is, but in my mind, it is the right and proper thing to do.

          The blood is on the hands of Putin, not those defending themselves and the countries supporting htat defense.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “I see no proof either way, it comes down to which propaganda machine you choose too believe.”

      Well put. I must say, though, that it is tiresome to hear, over and over again, that “my” propaganda is better than “yours.”

      Like

      1. “my” propaganda is better than “yours.”

        Not too absurd. You are equating the reporting of independent and FREE journalists from many countries to the nonsense Russia puts out on every event. “My propaganda” IS better than “your propaganda” because “my propaganda” is NOT propaganda – it is news of the events.

        Compare “my propaganda” on the sinking of the pride of the Russian Black Sea fleet with yours. Mine says it was hit by missiles and eventually sank. Yours says a fire broke out on board and – bad luck – some munitions exploded. You know navy stuff – which story seems more likely to you?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. The joke is you obviously.

            First you claim it is more likely that after sailing around the Black Sea for forty years this ship just randomly chose to sink itself while cruising within range of an enemy armed with Neptune missiles which chose not to fire them.

            Second you choose to believe the known liars of the Kremlin rather than the reports of multiple Western journalists.

            Third, you scoff at the expertise of our own DoD and the honesty of their reporting. And that after mocking me as knowing more than the Pentagon.

            All in support of the criminal fascist warmonger Putin.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. “Russia is going to get what it wants”
    Sure, if they keep dialing back what they “want.”

    And whatever they end up “winning” it will be a textbook example of a Pyrhhic victory. The costs to Russia of Putin’s folly are already beyond measure and they are only just beginning.

    You people love to blame the victims. We see that all the time. In this case, the deaths are the fault of Ukraine because they choose to defend themselves. Uh no. The blame is on the war criminal Putin and the country that accepts his decisions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “The costs to Russia of Putin’s folly are already beyond measure…”

      What costs are those?

      The ruble has stabilized at pre-war exchange-rate levels, the country has access to all the import/export markets it needs, and Putin is nearly three times more popular than Biden.

      Like

      1. “Putin is nearly three times more popular than Biden”

        Would you like Putin to be our leader? Lies like Trump, but polls are much better than the former president’s. None of this messy voting stuff either. Journalists? Jails full of those bastards.

        What is not to like?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “Putin is nearly three times more popular than Biden”

          Biden’s approval rating is around 40%. That makes Putin’s 120%. That is quite something!

          If someone asks me if I support or oppose President Biden, I am not afraid to say what I believe. You think the same can be said in Putin’s Russia when such a question is asked?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Biden’s approval rating is around 40%. That makes Putin’s 120%.”

          No. Biden’s approval rating is around 30%. Putin’s is around 80%.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s