Putin gov't blame terrorists (with no planes) & spins conspiracy theories for airstrike on refugees

[uhnope]

You really can't make this shit up. The Russian gov is running true to form--after an airstrike on a refugee camp in Syria killed dozens, the Kremlin is both trying to blame the Al-Nusra front for the possible war crime (and trying to claim it wasn't an airstrike, since Al Nusra has no planes) --but simultaneously is pushing a conspiracy theory that it was done to take attention away from Dear Leader's live feed broadcast to Syria.

[Redwoods Red]

1. Show us the evidence it was a Russian or Syrian air strike.

The US government isn't sure what happened.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/strike-syrian-refugee-camp-kills-28-reports-n568951

It was unclear who launched the airstrike. A State Department spokesman said the U.S. had not determined whether or not Bashar Assad's regime was responsible, but was investigating the reports.

"We're looking into them and trying to get more details on what happened," State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said at a briefing.

Toner said the airstrike appears to have hit a refugee camp. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said it is not believed there were any U.S. or coalition aircraft operating in the region.

"There is no justifiable excuse for carrying out an airstrike against innocent civilians who have already once fled their homes to escape violence," Earnest said. "These individuals are in the most desperate situation imaginable, and there is no justification for carrying out military action that's targeting them."

Earnest added that if it turns out Assad's government was responsible for using force against civilians, "it would not at all be the first time."

-----------

The Russians say neither they nor Syrian planes were flying in the area, that there is no bomb crater, and that it was probably mortar or rocket fire from Al Nusra, which operates in the area.

[Igel]

2. The US government is Kasich to Russia's Trump.

One speaks loudly and brashly with a minimum of data in order to win rhetorically and not admitting any weakness or uncertainty because a lot of people assume over-confidence = competence. Then, if necessary, it admits it was wrong quietly when all the lights are off and the speaker is sitting alone in the cab on the way to the bar, quietly boasting that it won even though it as in error.

The other is cautious lest it make a mistake in the light of additional data, because if it makes a mistake now and tries to fix it immediately the loud and brash say, "Oh, so you're changing your story? How convenient, we just think you're lying."

Let's just say it was the Estonians so that Russia can annex Lithuania in the interest of world peace and restore de facto geographical contiguity with a part of Europe that's always been Russian territory under control of Moscow since at least Roman times. (And if you think there's some sort of factual incoherence in that sentence, well, you're obviously a deviant thinker and an Islamic terrorist, abu Musa).


(Note that "Musa" is also the genus for banana plants, not just how "Moses" is in Arabic".)