Russia's Western "colleagues" at the U.N. Security Council make it clear that they have a “different [operating] standard” with regard to Syria which "does not imply an unqualified denunciation of terrorism". Any questions?

The West's response to the deadly twin bomb attacks in Damascus on Saturday continues to shock even the most hardened cynics.

In what can only be described as an act of extremely good timing, Washington managed to distance itself from the group that claimed responsibility for the bombings just hours before the attack was carried out. Reuters then proceeded to portray the suicide bombers and the terrorist organization they belonged to as misunderstood "hardline rebels" fighting Assad's "tyrannical rule".

Stay classy.

Now there's this:

Russia was forced to recall its draft statement of the United Nations Security Council condemning the March 11 terror attack in Damascus because a number of Western countries tried to change the document’s essence, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Monday

This is a very diplomatic way of saying that Washington and its client states thought that the draft statement was unfair to suicide bombers.

Here's a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry that will probably harm your blood pressure:

It is regrettable that the Security Council does not always find a common denominator on the Syrian issue. For example, the biased position held by a number of its Western members prevented it from reaching a consensus on a Russia-proposed draft press statement denouncing the bloody terrorist attack in Damascus on March 11, which claimed 70 lives, according to the latest reports. Implementing their well-known political directives, they attempted to unjustifiably modify the thrust of the document by including provisions reading as accusations of the Syrian authorities and justification of the terrorists’ actions . In consequence, we had to withdraw the draft. Moreover, during the debate on the text, our Western colleagues made it clear that they had a “different [operating] standard” with regard to Syria, which did not imply an unqualified denunciation of terrorism . The consequences of this approach may prove most unfortunate. At the same time, we believe it is crucial that the crime in Damascus was resolutely condemned by the UN Secretary-General.

Yes, the U.S. and its client states wanted to "modify the thrust of the document" by providing "justification of the terrorists’ actions", because the West has a “different [operating] standard” with regard to Syria which "does not imply an unqualified denunciation of terrorism".

When does Al Nusra get to join the Security Council? They'll fit right in.