Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Do they call for the extermination of the Iranian people so their country can be handed back to the Greeks?

Nope. They don't know any history. They just call for nuking Iran, bombing Iran, etc.

I believe the standard estimates are in the 100,000-200,000 range, far less than the number of Iraqi deaths attributed to Sunni and Shiite militias

That wouldn't even cover the deaths under US sanctions, or the strictly military casualties. The Iraq Body Count runs to 200,000 just on the well-documented cases of violent death.
Are you actually blaming the Sunni and Shiite militia deaths in Iraq on Iran?

That logic doesn't in any way justify what Iran has been doing to export Shiite militarism in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, which only escalated after the US left Iraq. They are not reacting to foreign war exports with these activities, they've been exporting their own wars since 1979

They are reacting to foreign war exports, including direct threats from military forces on their border and patrolling their ports. The US has thousands of soldiers in Iraq right now. And Iran has confined its "export" of war to its own borders and security fears - which are very well founded.

This is one issue where I agree with Trump, the deal Obama accepted stinks and he should have waited the Iranians out until they simply had no money left with which to cause regional chaos. No more sponsoring of any militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, no more nuclear missile or warhead development, no more highly enriched uranium or plutonium.

There seems to be an obvious diplomatic approach here, which would begin by reducing the military threats and sanctions and other holdovers from colonial days

Physically blocking Iran from receiving something legal from a willing foreign trade partner would be an act of war, - - - .

The US has been doing that for decades.

 

[CptBork]

Nope. They don't know any history. They just call for nuking Iran, bombing Iran, etc.

Well if Iran wants to defend itself from people seeking its extermination as a civilization, I fully support their right to do that, and I suggest that targeting people who don't actually want a fight should not be seen as an acceptable or rational approach to achieving peace and security for themselves.

That wouldn't even cover the deaths under US sanctions,

The US didn't make Saddam take what little money he had left and spend it on golden palaces. The fact that he had money to spend on such palaces proves that sanctions didn't starve the country of the basic resources it needed to survive. Oh look, I'm stabbing my own children, give me 100 million dollars to make me stop or it's all your fault!

or the strictly military casualties. The Iraq Body Count runs to 200,000 just on the well-documented cases of violent death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Yes and virtually every single estimate I've come across suggests that a vast majority of the violent deaths are due to sectarian fighting not involving western countries. You can argue that Saddam ripping people to shreds for entertainment kept Sunnis and Shia from fighting for a while until the US destabilized things; I don't think the US can be blamed when Shias go after Sunni children and Sunnis go after Shia children, certainly not more than the parties directly involved in that fighting along with their sponsors.

Are you actually blaming the Sunni and Shiite militia deaths in Iraq on Iran?

In cases where the fighting involved sectarian militias paid, trained and equipped by Iran, roadside bombs supplied by Iran etc., absolutely.

They are reacting to foreign war exports, including direct threats from military forces on their border and patrolling their ports.

Lebanon and Syria are not on the Iranian border, nor is Yemen.

The US has thousands of soldiers in Iraq right now. And Iran has confined its "export" of war to its own borders and security fears - which are very well founded.

Thousands of soldiers aren't enough to mount a sustained full-scale military campaign against a nation with Iran's size. How about Iran stop escalating things militarily so that number doesn't turn into tens of thousands?

There seems to be an obvious diplomatic approach here, which would begin by reducing the military threats and sanctions and other holdovers from colonial days

I think the military threats should be toned down, aside from proportional responses to the various threats Iran's leaders make. As for sanctions relief, I don't think any of that should happen until Iran shows that it's sufficiently incentivized to negotiate on a comprehensive end to its regional mischief and long-term genocidal fantasies.

The US has been doing that for decades.

What internationally legal goods has the US physically blocked Iran from receiving via willing trade partners? I'm not aware of any North Korean medicine shipments being confiscated.

 

[Schmelzer]

It looks like there will be some more activity in Syria during the next time.

The offensive I have written about in the past stopped after some short time. The reasons have been in part political (Russia wants to avoid conflict with Erdogan, thus, tends to support ceasefires and so on), but in part tactical - during this initial phase, the terrorists have put a lot of manpower to these regions, and this is quite good for the Syrians - the ongoing fight was in a region essentially without civilians, so one could bomb the terrorists without endangering civilians. But after some time, the support of new fighters to the region of fighting decreased. So, a week ago the Syrian army started taking some hills and villages in Hama:

Here, the red region is what has been taken during the first period, the blue one what has been taken last week. Observers mentioned a key difference between the first and the second period: In the first period, each progress of the Syrian army was answered by an immediate counterattack. Last week, there were no such counterattacks.

After this, because of the Astana meeting, there was another ceasefire declared. Some guys has named it "Schroedinger ceasefire" given that it remained unclear if there is one or not. AFAIU, the terrorist gangs have simply not accepted the conditions.

These are the latest advances, again, nothing heard about counterattacks.

Sending terrorists to bomb American troops and Iraqi Sunnis is a bigger act of war than anything I've seen the US do to Iran on Iranian soil.

Ok, you don't see it because you don't want. Everybody who cares knows that Kurdish terrorist in Iran have US support too. And the support for all regime change operations in Iran is even openly acknowledged.

Sending terrorists to other countries to murder Shia people is what the US is doing all the time in Syria.

If Iranians had a choice who to vote for, opposition politicians wouldn't be banned from running when they become too popular. Maybe you don't see it, but I find some pretty juicy irony in a country's leaders calling other countries evil and then crying when those countries stop trading with them and supplying them with goods that require post-19th century technology to be developed domestically from scratch.

The only problem with the US sanctions is that the US tries to force other countries to sanction Iran.

 

[CptBork]

It looks like there will be some more activity in Syria during the next time.

The offensive I have written about in the past stopped after some short time. The reasons have been in part political (Russia wants to avoid conflict with Erdogan, thus, tends to support ceasefires and so on), but in part tactical - during this initial phase, the terrorists have put a lot of manpower to these regions, and this is quite good for the Syrians - the ongoing fight was in a region essentially without civilians, so one could bomb the terrorists without endangering civilians. But after some time, the support of new fighters to the region of fighting decreased. So, a week ago the Syrian army started taking some hills and villages in Hama:

Given that there are basically as many or more rebels in Idlib now as Assad and all his allies have managed to kill in the last 8 years, given that they have nowhere else to flee now and are therefore forced to make a last stand, and given that Turkey has no interest in taking on another 3 million refugees while also retaining a much more powerful army than Assad's and constant armed support to the rebels, how can you seriously expect a depleted, demoralized Syrian army backed by a crippled economy to achieve anything significant there? They'll capture a few hills and towns, then lose them a few days later. Unless Russia has plans to firebomb the whole province and expects Turkey to sit back and do nothing about it, one should expect a long-term stalemate. Assad has no chance of taking Idlib on his own and wouldn't even hold Damascus without foreign support, and Iran has expressed little interest in helping him out there, so what exactly are you expecting him to achieve?

Ok, you don't see it because you don't want. Everybody who cares knows that Kurdish terrorist in Iran have US support too. And the support for all regime change operations in Iran is even openly acknowledged.

Iran refuses to grant democratic rights to the Kurdish people in its territories, nor does it recognize their basic human right to self-determination. Therefore the Kurds are entitled to forcefully resist any attempts to force autocracy on them. Attacking military targets which are involved in oppressing your people is not terrorism, it's war and resistance to occupation which fall under a different category altogether. There are currently no serious attempts at regime change occurring in Iran, no one's attempted to assassinate or abduct any Ayatollahs or ministers as far as I've heard, you don't have any obvious examples of Americans adopting fake Persian ID's and making online posts about how much they wish they could be conquered and bossed around by the US.

Above all, foreign support for Kurdish autonomy or independence is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocents systematically murdered in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere by Russia, Iran and their proxies.

Sending terrorists to other countries to murder Shia people is what the US is doing all the time in Syria.

The US isn't mass-murdering Shias anywhere in the world right now, let alone Syria. The vast majority of the Syrian rebels were born and raised in Syria; nearly all the front line troops doing Assad's fighting are supplied, paid for and commanded by Russia and Iran, while Assad's Syrian troops guard checkpoints and take bribes in relative safety.

The only problem with the US sanctions is that the US tries to force other countries to sanction Iran.

Hey if Germany wants to continue doing business with Iran, the US isn't pointing a gun at them and forcing them to stop anything. They just won't get to do business with the US, they might not get to visit Disneyland, but if they find it more important to buy rugs and sell dual use military technologies to people who want to eliminate their way of life, that's their call.

 

[Schmelzer]

Given that there are basically as many or more rebels in Idlib now as Assad and all his allies have managed to kill in the last 8 years, given that they have nowhere else to flee now and are therefore forced to make a last stand, and given that Turkey has no interest in taking on another 3 million refugees while also retaining a much more powerful army than Assad's and constant armed support to the rebels, how can you seriously expect a depleted, demoralized Syrian army backed by a crippled economy to achieve anything significant there?

Given that what you consider as "given" is not given at all but propaganda fantasies, the question is not well-posed. The Syrian army has no base at all for demoralization, they are winning during the last years and have liberated large parts of the territory. Then, the terrorists have places to flee - the Turkish-controlled regions in the North. Turkey plans to liberate even more of them from the Kurdish/US forces in the North, East of the Euphrat. Those who are demoralized are the terrorist forces. And, as in many other parts, a lot of them will prefer to give up instead of dying. The arms support by Turkey is also not that impressive, and in fact only implicit - they support those forces which agree to fight the Kurds. But, given that they are nonetheless jihadists, they also fight the Syrian army.

In Syria, the progress continues:

The hill Tal Sakhar is a quite important one, there have been heavy fights around this hill in the first phase because this hill allows to control/secure Kafr Nabuda. Actually, it was taken easily, without any report about heavy fighting or so.

On the other hand, there has been information that in Kafr Zita reinforcements of the terrorist have arrived. (Some speculate that they have been simply taken from Tal Sakhar, essentially giving up this strategic hill, but this is far from clear.) And there has been some artillery attacks by the terrorists.

They'll capture a few hills and towns, then lose them a few days later.

We will see. Counterattacks are, of course, welcome, this is what the Syrian army would like to see because this is a way to kill a lot of terrorists without endangering civilians. But it looks like the time of counterattacks is over now. Looks like there is no longer enough manpower on the side of the terrorists for attacks. Maybe this is simply because Turkey has told some of them to go North to fight the Kurds.

Unless Russia has plans to firebomb the whole province and expects Turkey to sit back and do nothing about it, one should expect a long-term stalemate. Assad has no chance of taking Idlib on his own and wouldn't even hold Damascus without foreign support, and Iran has expressed little interest in helping him out there, so what exactly are you expecting him to achieve?

Your fantasies aside, I expect indeed only slow progress, interrupted by a lot of ceasefires negotiated between Russia and Turkey. The terrorists have not enough power to enforce a stalemate, and from a purely military point of view, Assad would be strong enough to finish them alone, at least if Turkey would not deliver them heavy arms. The slowing down caused by ceasefires is political. In fact, all sides are comfortable with this. As long as the progress is slow, this is not problematic for Erdogan, and if most of the fanatic jihadists are killed, this is not a big problem for Erdogan too, they are fine for him as long as they fight in Syria, but not if they run away to Turkey. Same for the West. There is no big propaganda point if Assad takes a few hills and villages, no mass emigration to Turkey and Europe. The towns will be taken in the usual way - surrounded, with leaving a small corridor for the terrorists to run away, a possibility which will be used. The West will do yet another implausible fake gas attack, nothing more.

Iran refuses to grant democratic rights to the Kurdish people in its territories, nor does it recognize their basic human right to self-determination. Therefore the Kurds are entitled to forcefully resist any attempts to force autocracy on them. Attacking military targets which are involved in oppressing your people is not terrorism, it's war and resistance to occupation which fall under a different category altogether.

We all know that the US has the right to support terrorists fighting against every government it does not like, according to US propagandists.

There are currently no serious attempts at regime change occurring in Iran,

The last ones have failed miserably, now they try to use sanctions to fight Iran.

The US isn't mass-murdering Shias anywhere in the world right now, let alone Syria.

Because the attempt has not been successful. The terrorists explicitly and openly supported by the US have murdered Shias in Syria whenever they were able to murder them. In the case of their success, there would have been a mass murder of Shias and Christians in Syria, fully supported by the US.

Hey if Germany wants to continue doing business with Iran, the US isn't pointing a gun at them and forcing them to stop anything. They just won't get to do business with the US, they might not get to visit Disneyland, but if they find it more important to buy rugs and sell dual use military technologies to people who want to eliminate their way of life, that's their call.

In principle, I have no problem with sanctions. There is the position that sanctions are a violation of international law if not supported by the UNSC, I have not checked, the US anyway does not care, but I think any country should be allowed to impose sanctions how it likes.

Sanctions were actually a big problem for small countries during the unipolar period, given that once the US imposes sanctions with the threat to impose sanctions against everybody who makes a trade with this country, these sanctions became essentially worldwide sanctions. But today at least China and Russia don't care at all about US sanctions, and trade with Russia and China is already sufficient to survive sanctions. The good thing with the Iran sanctions is that now the EU starts to develop possibilities to trade with Iran which cannot be controlled by the US. Once this has been installed and established, Europe can ignore US sanctions too.

PS: Today there was some advance on the Eastern side of Idlib:

Moreover, there was some progress in Latakia, near Kabana. This is the most important point in the mountains in Latakia remaining under terrorist control. This village is heavily fortified and defended by the strongest elite troops of the terrorists. So, fighting there has been heavy, up to now without much success. Today, some of the hills South of Kabana have been taken. Here one clearly has to await powerful counterattacks. We will see.

 

[Schmelzer]

Progress continues, today the town Al Habit was liberated.

In the East, some movement South of Al Tamaniah has been claimed. The map shows the pessimistic variant that only the hill Tel Sukayk has been taken, not the village, but it seems that Sukayk has been taken too, else further movement toward Tamaniah would not make sense. So, Khan Sheikhoun is now in danger from two sides.

 

[Schmelzer]

Good progress on the Western side of the front:

Kafr Ayn has been taken, as well as some small villages around and the last hill on the way to Khan Shaykhun, Tal ais. On the Eastern front, there is heavy fighting for another hill, Tal Ter'i. It has been taken, but there was not enough time to establish defenses, and once the terrorists began a counterattack, they retreated to the village Sukayk (which, as I guessed in the last post, is under army control).

Actually, there is fighting around this hill.

PS: There is news that the Tiger forces have also taken the "al-Salam" checkpoint at the Western entry into the town Khan Shaykhun, the green line in the following map:

I doubt they will really try to take Khan Shaykhun today, but taking the few houses around this checkpoint makes sense as a preparation for what follows. There simply have to be heavy counterattacks, and if they have also taken the Jaish al Izza training camp South of the checkpoint, and with fire support from the hill behind, they will have a position which they could defend at least some time - time for the main forces to build defenses on the hill.

But who knows, maybe the terrorists are weaker than expected. We will see.

 

[CptBork]

Another good news comrades, it feel like Russia almost real country again!

 

[Schmelzer]

The PS news of yesterday appeared to be faked. There was either nobody at all there or at most some snoopers. There is a suspicion that those have been intentional fake news so that later they could report a victory of taking these positions back.

There has been real advance today in the Northern direction, as shown here:

 

[CptBork]

The PS news of yesterday appeared to be faked. There was either nobody at all there or at most some snoopers. There is a suspicion that those have been intentional fake news so that later they could report a victory of taking these positions back.

Where was this news reported and why did you treat it as credible if you now believe the info to have been faked?

 

[Schmelzer]

Where was this news reported and why did you treat it as credible if you now believe the info to have been faked?

It was posted in a Russian military forum, with a link to a twit. The guy who posted it is reliable, that means, does not post arbitrary twits but only from accounts which he has accepted as reliable. (He was the first who has later posted the info that this info is wrong, and later apologized.) It was supported by a similar twit, about two nearby places also claimed to be taken by the army, with the link posted by another reliable guy. The twits they linked have been deleted now, showing that those who have posted them have recognized that it was wrong too.

What has caused the wrong info remains unclear. The pattern was not a typical one. The original sources were from terrorist side, where one usually suspects fake victories of the terrorists reported, but not fake victories of the Syrian army. Once there seems to have been no claimed victories of taking back those claimed losses, the intentional fake as a preparation for this seems not plausible. So my personal guess is actually panic among the terrorists, or that they have seen some snoopers. To consider claims of own losses as more reliable than claims of own victories is quite natural and reasonable, but, as this example shows, it sometimes fails.

The Syrian army continues not to care about Khan Sheikhun and continues to take villages in the Northern direction:

There has been also a counterattack, which has been repelled.

 

[CptBork]

It was posted in a Russian military forum, with a link to a twit. The guy who posted it is reliable, that means, does not post arbitrary twits but only from accounts which he has accepted as reliable. (He was the first who has later posted the info that this info is wrong, and later apologized.) It was supported by a similar twit, about two nearby places also claimed to be taken by the army, with the link posted by another reliable guy. The twits they linked have been deleted now, showing that those who have posted them have recognized that it was wrong too.

What has caused the wrong info remains unclear. The pattern was not a typical one. The original sources were from terrorist side, where one usually suspects fake victories of the terrorists reported, but not fake victories of the Syrian army. Once there seems to have been no claimed victories of taking back those claimed losses, the intentional fake as a preparation for this seems not plausible. So my personal guess is actually panic among the terrorists, or that they have seen some snoopers. To consider claims of own losses as more reliable than claims of own victories is quite natural and reasonable, but, as this example shows, it sometimes fails.

So your posts are based on a Russian fascist's personal blog with no means for people who don't live like serfs to verify that the contents are reliable? The dude publishes fake news, from fake sources. He/she is not reliable, nor is any of the info you post based on the fantasy novels your comrades write. Why not stick to sources that can be independently verified? If you're attempting to be objective, why do you never report anything except good news for Russia, except when Russia itself admits to something bad which contradicts the another good newsings you reported earlier?

I have a friend of a friend of a friend's cousin's nephew who speaks with a Russian accent, has eyes that sag all the way down to the floor and wishes to give his life for Russia's defense, but claims to be German. He says Russia tried doing something stupid recently to make up for their comprehensive and systematic inferiority to America and Americans, and it sprayed a bunch of radioactive waste everywhere that, with the right weather, could have blown right over Moscow. Oh wait, the difference between that guy's news and yours is that my guy's report is actually true.

 

[Schmelzer]

So your posts are based on a Russian fascist's personal blog with no means for people who don't live like serfs to verify that the contents are reliable? Why not stick to sources that can be independently verified?

First, https://glav.su/forum/5/2237/messages/last/ is not a blog but a forum. Then, many of its users are professional military men, some with experience in Syria. Some of their sources are directly from the Syrian army. I value that forum because it adds a lot of professional comments to the various nonsense claimed. Other platforms have had this news too: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi...es_begun_inside_khan_shaykoun_after_saa_took/
so I would have made the same error if I would have relied on reddit.

If you're attempting to be objective, why do you never report anything except good news for Russia, except when Russia itself admits to something bad which contradicts the another good newsings you reported earlier?

If you compare the map 2015 with the map today, you will easily find out that the Syrian army has reached a lot of progress. So, that the news I present is good news for the Syrian army is simply a consequence that they have been successful on the ground, which everybody can see by looking at the results.
Feel free to think about which side would have received the most positive news during the last years by an objective reporter:

 

[CptBork]

First, https://glav.su/forum/5/2237/messages/last/ is not a blog but a forum. Then, many of its users are professional military men, some with experience in Syria. Some of their sources are directly from the Syrian army. I value that forum because it adds a lot of professional comments to the various nonsense claimed. Other platforms have had this news too: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi...es_begun_inside_khan_shaykoun_after_saa_took/
so I would have made the same error if I would have relied on reddit.

Russia claims that it has no combat troops active in Idlib so either Russia lies or the soldiers lie, therefore we can't trust either source since they all work for the same midget. What reason do you have to trust Russian soldiers who lie to families about the sacrifices they make, and cover up how poorly their children fought against the US when they tried that, even though there's no incentive for them to tell demoralizing truths, but you dismiss Amnesty International which criticizes practically every country on the planet?

If you compare the map 2015 with the map today, you will easily find out that the Syrian army has reached a lot of progress. So, that the news I present is good news for the Syrian army is simply a consequence that they have been successful on the ground, which everybody can see by looking at the results.
Feel free to think about which side would have received the most positive news during the last years by an objective reporter:

As the map shows, the US remains firmly in place as it has been for several years, assisting the Kurds to retain control of their oil sources while people line up for gasoline in Damascus and the regime spends its time building luxury condos with the pennies left in their accounts. Russia doesn't have the military strength to dislodge the US, nor do Iran, Hezbollah and Assad. So it looks like ultimately the regime will either fall in the end, or else Russia will eventually have to start bombing the Alawites too, because the regime has no resources left to provide for anyone and no money to rebuild anything either.

Idlib remains intact, it's not going to be taken any time soon if the regime only has enough troops to partake in minor border skirmishes. When 10,000 rebels die in a single day, then it's close to over, but that hasn't happened once in the whole war even when Assad used Sarin and your fat vodka-soaked soldier buddies lied about it.

In any case it doesn't matter who's winning, that has nothing to do with why you take information from Russian forums and treat it as completely credible but never report when Russian planes get damaged by rocket and drone attacks, and automatically dismiss it as propaganda when a child gets gassed just because he denied it later on camera with Russian soldiers walking around in the background at a known military location which Russian spokesmen lied about. You're not in a position to say what is and what isn't propaganda because you never established the reliability of the sources you rely on.

 

[Schmelzer]

Russia claims that it has no combat troops active in Idlib so either Russia lies or the soldiers lie, therefore we can't trust either source since they all work for the same midget.

Nobody cares if you trust, there is a lot of military personals in Syria, and officially. And there will be always, because Russia has bases there. If among them are combat troops or not does not matter, advisors are there officially, and they are essentially everywhere.

As the map shows, the US remains firmly in place as it has been for several years, assisting the Kurds to retain control of their oil sources

The US indeed occupies some oil sources. Up to now, nothing visible has been done to stop that, Idlib is yet more relevant, because it is full of really dangerous terrorists, while there was never any serious fight between the Syrian army and the Kurds. But you describe nicely the US as the ultimate terror state. Occupying some oil sources in a foreign country, and then starting an oil embargo against it, to harm the people.

Russia doesn't have the military strength to dislodge the US, nor do Iran, Hezbollah and Assad.

And the US is afraid to start a war against Iran. As we have seen, when Iran shot that US drone and the US did not react.

Moreover, you seem unaware of the vulnerability of the US. If it is time to throw the US out of Syria, there will be no attack of the Russian or Iranian military, but some local terrorists will murder US soldiers on the ground.

Idlib remains intact, it's not going to be taken any time soon if the regime only has enough troops to partake in minor border skirmishes. When 10,000 rebels die in a single day, then it's close to over, but that hasn't happened once in the whole war even when Assad used Sarin and your fat vodka-soaked soldier buddies lied about it.

Funny fantasies. In fact, the use of vodka has decreased over the last years essentially, the Russians now prefer beer. And the Syrian army continues its advances on the ground of Idlib. Today Tal Nar has been taken, a hill which gives fire control over the M5 highway, and directly endangers Kafr Sajna. I have chosen a greater map, roughly the Southern half of Idlib, given that it shows in a nicely visible place Tal Sakhar, taken 10 days ago (#1145):

So, 20 days of similar "minor border skirmishes" and Maarat al Nunam is endangered, and two-three months and they would have reached along the M5 Aleppo and cut Idlib into two parts. The temp of the advances is the usual one of the Tiger forces, one village per day, and what has been reached with this temp over a few years see the maps above.

Not that I would expect that this will really happen in such a time. My guess is that it will be stopped earlier with some ceasefire for political reasons. But if the politics will not stop this, this would be a reasonable way - West e fate of the Idlib enclave is quite obvious.

There is no need to kill 10000 in a single day, 100 per day is completely sufficient. The terrorists are already visibly much weaker than during the first phase in May, when every village taken by the SAA was answered by heavy counterattacks, with some of them succeeding in taking back something.

and automatically dismiss it as propaganda when a child gets gassed just because he denied it later on camera with Russian soldiers walking around in the background at a known military location which Russian spokesmen lied about.

Western propaganda fantasies which in that form are today not even claimed by the Western propaganda itself. The "known military location" was a garden openly accessible to the public (no entry control into the garden) in a central street of Damascus of a house with some club for officers inside, there was no lie by the Russian journalist, and that the video with the boy made by the terrorists was staged was so obvious that even at least some Western propagandists have acknowledged it.

 

[iceaura]

And the US is afraid to start a war against Iran. As we have seen, when Iran shot that US drone and the US did not react.

Cross your fingers that the minority of the US that does fear war with Iran continues to impede the rest - or that Putin's apparent hold over the US President continues to be effective, or that the US voters manage to remove the current Republican administration.

Because the current US "leadership", specifically the Republican administration and Republican Congress, is not afraid to start a war against Iran - they should be, but they aren't. They have the common delusion of all fascists - that dominating will and military superiority can win and rule without any other justification, that power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Too many of them are eager - and trying to push the rest of the US into what would be an even bigger disaster than Iraq. Meanwhile, most of the US has no idea who or what or where Iran is. They don't know enough to fear war with Iran. You are counting on a minority - and working against it.

 

[Schmelzer]

There have been, again, claims about a storm of Khan Sheikhun, it remains unclear how reliable they are. That Tal Nar is under control of the Syrian army is certain, there has been an attempt to retake it which has failed. It seems reliable that there have been advances from the West of Khan Sheikhun as well as the North-West. There are claims that even three checkpoints have been taken, Salam (West), Faqir (North-West) and even the Al Nimr checkpoint in the North, at the M5 highway, there are even claims that the army has already taken parts of the town, but these claims seem unreliable. What seems reliable is that after taking Tal Nar the Syrian army turned toward Khan Sheikhun. So, first of all, the main routes for reinforcements are cut, and, moreover, they can attack now from an unexpected side, less prepared for defense - from North-West.

The map marks the North-Western al Faqir checkpoint as taken, which is similar to my impression.

Because the current US "leadership", specifically the Republican administration and Republican Congress, is not afraid to start a war against Iran - they should be, but they aren't. They have the common delusion of all fascists - that dominating will and military superiority can win and rule without any other justification, that power comes from the barrel of a gun.

This delusion is shared by all the US leadership, no difference. What makes the difference? Not sure, but it seems that Trump has understood the point that starting a war will not help him in the elections.

 

[Schmelzer]

The M5 highway has been cut by the Syrian army, and what seems more or less confirmed looks like this:

There was some confusion with a Turkish military convoy with the aim to go to the Turkish army observation point, which was attacked by the Syrian army. Unfortunately, there were several "civilians" killed, and one of them was a well-known leader of one of the pro-Turkish terrorist gangs, and that gang has published the information about this.

 

[CptBork]

Nobody cares if you trust, there is a lot of military personals in Syria, and officially. And there will be always, because Russia has bases there. If among them are combat troops or not does not matter, advisors are there officially, and they are essentially everywhere.

And they're not in a position to know the truth, nor do they have any reason to tell it. If American troops can't be trusted to tell the truth then there's no reason to trust a bunch of vodka-soaked rapists.

The US indeed occupies some oil sources. Up to now, nothing visible has been done to stop that, Idlib is yet more relevant, because it is full of really dangerous terrorists, while there was never any serious fight between the Syrian army and the Kurds. But you describe nicely the US as the ultimate terror state. Occupying some oil sources in a foreign country, and then starting an oil embargo against it, to harm the people.

The oil belongs to the Kurds to do with as they please, not unelected terrorists like Assad and Putin. You want it and you can't have it, because America is too strong for you.

And the US is afraid to start a war against Iran. As we have seen, when Iran shot that US drone and the US did not react.

The US and Israel attack Iranian targets all the time and have cost billions of dollars in damage to Iran's war machine and economy. Who cares about one stupid drone? If the US went to war with Iran over a single robot, you'd call them criminals, but when they do the sensible thing you call them cowards. Nice ploy, Ruslan.

Moreover, you seem unaware of the vulnerability of the US. If it is time to throw the US out of Syria, there will be no attack of the Russian or Iranian military, but some local terrorists will murder US soldiers on the ground.

You've been saying that for three years. Where are the terrorists? Last I heard they're on the run and mostly operating against easy targets like Russians and Syrian government troops.

Funny fantasies. In fact, the use of vodka has decreased over the last years essentially, the Russians now prefer beer.

And I'm sure it's led to an increase in the number of rustards passing out in the streets and soaking their pants after a night out dreaming of the glorious conquest of Kiev.

Western propaganda fantasies which in that form are today not even claimed by the Western propaganda itself. The "known military location" was a garden openly accessible to the public (no entry control into the garden) in a central street of Damascus of a house with some club for officers inside, there was no lie by the Russian journalist, and that the video with the boy made by the terrorists was staged was so obvious that even at least some Western propagandists have acknowledged it.

The interview was conducted on the grounds of the Officer's Club, which can be seen from observing the background. The reporter conducting the interview denied it, then changed his story to claim it was filmed next door. At least the kid did his job so they don't have to cut his dad's balls off.

I'd like to know what "Western propaganda" has retracted claims about the Douma attack. What we do know is that the Russian propaganda version was put together by a potato-headed pedophile named Dmitry Kiselyov and relied on footage from a 2016 film to claim that the 2018 attacks were staged.

https://www.rferl.org/a/syria-douma-gas-attack-russian-tv-2016-husari-film-images-hoax/29190050.html

 

[Schmelzer]

There is news, actually not yet confirmed, that the whole Southern part of Idlib is collapsing, with the terrorists simply running away out of Kafr Zita and Latamnia, the Syrian forces having taken Kafr Zita without a fight, claims that large parts of not all of Khan Sheikhun was taken the Tiger forces, even that they entered the town without a fight. We will see in short time how reliable these news are, but they are certainly plausible once the M5 was cut. Especially for you the reference to a neutral source where you can read all this too:https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/csn44l/khan_sheikhoun_fully_captured_by_saa/
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi...bels_completely_withdrew_from_kafr_zita_town/
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi...ernment_troops_completely_captured_kafr_zita/
But the reliability of these claims is yet under question. There is wide agreement that the terrorists are running away, and that the Syrian army is inside Khan Sheikhun and has control over parts of the town. The most plausible map I have seen is the following:

One should be aware that "the terrorists running away" does not mean all of them running away, simply because there are very different groups with very different morals. Some of the most fanatic Hatesh (Al Qaida) guys will remain there. Then, all the area is full of mines, traps, suicidal fanatics and so on, so, the Syrian army will advance only slowly into the area, to secure it.

In fact, it would be even good news if there would be nonetheless a lot of resistance during the next days, because this would be resistance by the most fanatic faction of the terrorists, Hatesh (Al Qaida), and it would be nice to fight and destroy them in a situation where they have no supplies, no support from less fanatic forces, and so on.

Idlib remains intact, it's not going to be taken any time soon if the regime only has enough troops to partake in minor border skirmishes.

So, the first minor border skirmish is close to its finishing line, with the whole Southern border of Idlib going under SAA control. We will see if another minor border skirmish starts immediately after this or if there will be yet another ceasefire to pander Erdogan.

And they're not in a position to know the truth, nor do they have any reason to tell it. If American troops can't be trusted to tell the truth then there's no reason to trust a bunch of vodka-soaked rapists.

That the army knows the truth on the ground much better than everybody else is a triviality, that they don't tell the truth is obvious too. Disinformation about the actual situation on the ground is an important weapon and often enough decides about the lives of those fighting there. So, what is officially said by the army, is nothing but an official position.

But professional military guys are in a much better position than laymen to distinguish truth from fakes in the net if they sit at home. With such experienced people as commenters in the background identifying fakes is much easier.

You want it and you can't have it, because America is too strong for you.

We will see. It is not yet time to try, first Idlib has to be finished. BTW, in the regions with the oil, the Kurds are occupants, the population there are Arabs. And this will be the natural way - these Arabs will fight the Kurds, and if the Americans participate, they will fight them too.

And we have yet to see what America will do if Syrian declares that it closes its airspace for the coalition. This is also for the future, up to now there is yet training of the Syrian forces for S-300, and the initial aim of this will be to stop the following:

The US and Israel attack Iranian targets all the time and have cost billions of dollars in damage to Iran's war machine and economy. Who cares about one stupid drone?

LOL, billions of dollars. BTW, two years ago the Israeli warplanes did what they liked to do on the Syrian territory. Actually, it is a no-go for them, what they do is to shoot missiles from Lebanon and Mediterranean Sea. The drone was, BTW, not stupid, but one of the more expensive reconnaissance drones, so, probably more expensive for the US tax payer than all the Iranian toys that the Israelis shot this year in Syria.

If the US went to war with Iran over a single robot, you'd call them criminals, but when they do the sensible thing you call them cowards.

They are criminal cowards, and there have been so many crimes done by these cowards that there is no necessity to justify this obvious classification. US troops can fight only if they have 100% airspace superiority. Without such superiority, they simply run away, and that's why count as cowards. (Some special forces may be exceptions from this rule. At least they have been in the past. But if one looks at how often SWAT teams shot completely harmless civilians if they search their homes, the general deterioration of former professional standards does not make exceptions for special forces.)

You've been saying that for three years. Where are the terrorists? Last I heard they're on the run and mostly operating against easy targets like Russians and Syrian government troops.

Indeed, actually the are on the run from these "easy targets". Learn to read - it was the aim of the Russians to reach this state, and to prevent them from doing other things than running away.

The interview was conducted on the grounds of the Officer's Club, which can be seen from observing the background. The reporter conducting the interview denied it, then changed his story to claim it was filmed next door.

No, he was not asked about "on the grounds", but if it was inside the Officer's Club. He denied this, and said he has, as a journalist, no permission of entry for the club. The check if you have such permission is made inside the house. The garden around, where the interview happened, is open to everybody, as can be easily seen.

I'd like to know what "Western propaganda" has retracted claims about the Douma attack.

Sorry, but I have not saved the link. Somewhere in the German newspaper ZEIT some guy admitted that the hospital video was faked.

What we do know is that the Russian propaganda version was put together by a potato-headed pedophile named Dmitry Kiselyov and relied on footage from a 2016 film to claim that the 2018 attacks were staged.

Using old unrelated photos to illustrate the articles is so common today that it does not even count as propaganda, it is simply part of the general deterioration of the professional standard in the media worldwide. If one assumes that a picture in an article has a direct connection to the content of the article, instead of simply illustrating it somehow, one has been already played. Such low standards are common in Russian mass media too. As I said many times, I do not use mass media but prefer internet sources.