How was it NOT a terror attack? It was an attack on civilian infrastructure far away from the war zone. It was done because of the symbolic meaningfulness of the bridge (uniting Russian with Crimea). It was clearly a terror attack, just like the Dugin assassination.
It was a legimate military target, as that bridge was supplying the entire Russian army on the southern front. Meanwhile, Russia targeted a pedestrian bridge(and missed), a playground, and some random cars in the street in Kiev. Those had no military objective or use. Does this mean, using your definition, Russia committed a terrorist attack?
Well, they also attacked thermal power plants and electricity relay stations and such. (Not for the first time, and got hit back the same way just today.)
Yes it is you dickless dipshit. It was an attack
on civilian infrastructure without strategic importance to the war effort that served only to terrorize and demoralize Russians by hitting a symbol of putin’s reunification of crimea and Russia. How about you shut the fuck up so you don’t look any more retarded than you already do, you pathetic intellectual lightweight?
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored). - FBI
Violent, criminal acts (VBIED attack on a civilian bridge) committed by individuals and/or groups (Ukrainian SBU) inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (Ukraine).
How was it NOT a terror attack? It was an attack on civilian infrastructure far away from the war zone. It was done because of the symbolic meaningfulness of the bridge (uniting Russian with Crimea). It was clearly a terror attack, just like the Dugin assassination.
It was carried out with improvised explosives, legit military attacks use real weapons.
It was a legimate military target, as that bridge was supplying the entire Russian army on the southern front. Meanwhile, Russia targeted a pedestrian bridge(and missed), a playground, and some random cars in the street in Kiev. Those had no military objective or use. Does this mean, using your definition, Russia committed a terrorist attack?
Well, they also attacked thermal power plants and electricity relay stations and such. (Not for the first time, and got hit back the same way just today.)
That's not what a "terror attack" is you retard. You're all regurgitating the same drivel, which means you're all imbibing the same propaganda.
Yes it is you dickless dipshit. It was an attack on civilian infrastructure without strategic importance to the war effort that served only to terrorize and demoralize Russians by hitting a symbol of putin’s reunification of crimea and Russia. How about you shut the fuck up so you don’t look any more retarded than you already do, you pathetic intellectual lightweight?
Pretending that there are rules in war is silly. Civilian? Military? All is enemy.
Violent, criminal acts (VBIED attack on a civilian bridge) committed by individuals and/or groups (Ukrainian SBU) inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (Ukraine).
Nothing criminal about smashing invading Russians and their bridge. Try again, this time maybe try shoving the boot all the way into your throat.
Oh, didn't realize you're retarded. Did your parents have any normal children?