Syrian War: News #16

I think they mucked up the original advance into Bukamal a week ago. They apparently rushed in too quickly without proper reconassaince and support (such as engineers) and declared victory. While at the same time, the Tigers were sitting in Mayadin allowing IS to organise a large scale counter attack....

but it's looking good today

Cyberspec wrote:I think they mucked up the original advance into Bukamal a week ago. They apparently rushed in too quickly without proper reconassaince and support (such as engineers) and declared victory. While at the same time, the Tigers were sitting in Mayadin allowing IS to organise a large scale counter attack....

but it's looking good today

Most likely, but they really had to be quick in taking this town. If SDF took it (ISIS would simply give it away to SDF on US orders), things would be bad. Worked out fine in the end anyway.

Hezbollah and friends in Bukamal


...

Not long to go before they link up...

Visc wrote:
I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

It's great that Iran/Syria/Russia have broken ISIS. But why would the US hammer ISIS with airstrikes for years if it was a US proxy??! Peshmergas may be an American tool. But al-qaida and ISIS...

Time to be proud of the SAA, T-72 ftw
They're slowly invading Idlib proper.

@IvanSidorenko1
4 minutes ago

#Syria #Hama 4th Division ops at AL Hamra - Abu Dali axis after seizing Qasr Al Ali, Hirdanah & Harran. SAA continues advancing at two directions, north in order to seize Shutayeb & Ruwayida towns (the first towns inside Idlib governorate) & from south in order to capture Belil

starman wrote:

Visc wrote:
I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

It's great that Iran/Syria/Russia have broken ISIS. But why would the US hammer ISIS with airstrikes for years if it was a US proxy??! Peshmergas may be an American tool. But al-qaida and ISIS...

They say they hammer them, but they don't. In reality they provide intelligence, drop supplies etc. Russia knows this, Iran knows this, Syria knows this and everyone with a deeper understanding of geopolitics knows this.

The defeat of ISIS is highly exaggerated, specially with all that black becoming yellow.

I will give props to the U.S... what they're pulling off, while horrific, is nothing short of remarkable. Whether it ultimately serves its purpose in any significant way or not shouldn't distract from the operations being successful. That is, transfer of land from one proxy to another while maintaining theatrics about something else entirely. The coordination aspect  is really, really good.

On another note I don't understand why people entertain the Iran influence discussion. Like, of course Iran is going to have influence in Syria, and no amount of crying by Israel/U.S/Saudi's is going to change that... no amount of threats either. You can argue about the degree of influence but that can change due to hundreds of variables at any specific period of time. I mean if Iraq isn't a more significant example I don't know what is. At least Americans can bribe their way in Iraq to keep things "bearable" but in Syria they're stuck between a rock and a hard place which is why they're betting so much on the Kurds. I won't be surprised if they try to bribe Assad (sanction relief, E.U credit/reconstruction aid etc) at some point if their little SDF project doesn't go according to plan....

I don't want to get ahead a bit regarding "the deal" that was so hotly discussed here but if things stay the way they've been.... it does seem "the deal" did took place. Judging by results. I don't think SAA/Shia militias are moving forward north from Al Bukamal, apart from a buffer zone for the city.

What I find remarkable is their willingness to turn a major Nato ally (the most important in the region) into a defacto opposing force in exchange for some precarious presence in the desert...how long do you think they can sustain it anyway surrounded by hostile forces and especially taking into account developments on the Iraqi side of the border (loss of the main oilfields)?

JohninMK wrote:The SAA and allies now seem to be operating with armed mini drones. There is a whole lot of learning going on in this war.
[i]

Sort of related...

Samples of the experimental Electro-Magnetic Rifle "Stupor" have been provided to Syrian Special Forces for testing. The rifle is designed for use against light UAV's (up to 200kg) by disrupting the link between the UAV and operator with electro-magnetic pulses. It can also target the optics with a laser.

https://riafan.ru/998745-specnaz-sirii-vooruzhili-ubiicei-dronov-rossiiskoi-elektromagnitnoi-pushkoi-stupor






There's some more info in Russian below

https://masterok.livejournal.com/3839437.html

P.S

Came across a report in English..

Russia Tested Anti-Drone Guns in Syria
http://mil.today/2017/Syria20/

.

Fireworks today and tomorrow.

Trump is gonna miss the festivities as he's shackled by his own countrymen. He'll make a phone call tho...

https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2956593&cid=5#

Iran IRGC Quds Haj Qassem Soleimani commanding operation Al-BuKamal Syria حاج قاسم، عملیات البوکمال

Visc wrote:

Visc wrote:Unconfirmed - around 80% of the Abu Kamal town under SAA/allies control after Friday night push

Breaking: Syrian Army liberates most of Albukamal after entering city
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-liberates-albukamal-entering-city/

--------

So what is this AbuKamal all about and why is it so important?

I made a quick image to explain easier (click Enlarge this image).


There are two supply routes (there is one more in NE Syria but it's completely blocked by SDF so we will ignore it). I highlighted those two we care about atm in red. They are crucial because they link Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon/Hezbollah to reach Israel border.

One of them is blocked by the US troops (or "US-backed FSA troops") in the Syrian desert, south of Palmyra.
The second one is blocked by "ISIS" in AbuKamal. SDF (US proxy) wanted to take AbuKamal from ISIS - lSIS being US proxy just like SDF would withdraw/redeploy after letting Kurds record some propaganda videos of "fighting ISIS". However, SAA/allies realized this was the plan and set AbuKamal as their number 1 priority in Deir Ezzor province. After AbuKamal is cleaned up and the rest of the towns to the north of it are liberated (which will happen very fast), that supply route (named #1 for explanation purposes) will be opened. After that US will pull out from Syrian desert south of Palmyra because they will become useless since the other route is opened anyway.

I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

Oh and a reminder: ISIS fighter admits ISIS is forbidden from attacking Kurds (SDF)
https://cdnm.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amn_o95ZoYbMEKdJsxrm440TvCbGrV7xeYie.mp4

Have a nice evening.

Right on time. Like I said it would happen, US is pulling out from area south of Palmyra (al-Tanf) because they are useless after AbuKamal liberation from "ISIS" Checkmate.

"FSA dissolves unit in southern Syria after US cuts funding: report"

"The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has recently dissolved one of its units, which was fighting near the Syrian city of Al Tanf, Al-Hadath News reported, citing its military sources in the FSA.

The information was also confirmed by the websites of some Syrian military groups which cited one of the fighters of the dissolved units as saying that 180 militants have been dismissed and paid $2,000 each."

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/fsa-dissolves-unit-southern-syria-us-cuts-funding-report/
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711211059301826-us-syria-fsa-unit-dissolution/

Abu Kamal is a very big achievement for Syria and the whole region, even the world to a degree I'd dare say.

Major goals such as al-Qusayr, al-Zabadani, Aleppo, Deir Ezzor province (only a few out of many that come up to my mind) have all been achieved and Syria/allies are winning this war, but there's still work to be done. Now on to Hama/Idlib, ISIS cleanup and eventually taking care of Kurdish proxy stealing land and oil fields... The problematic areas and some pockets also remain in the regions in and around Homs/Damascus/Daraa/Quneitra Golan Heights.


So far the Israeli plans funneled through its Saudi puppet didn't work exactly as planned, at least it appears so. Too early to tell, but with this course of events, the danger of another Israeli invasion of Lebanon may become a realistic possibility, but Hezbollah is ready as always - if not more ready than ever before.

Visc wrote:

starman wrote:

Visc wrote:
I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

It's great that Iran/Syria/Russia have broken ISIS. But why would the US hammer ISIS with airstrikes for years if it was a US proxy??! Peshmergas may be an American tool. But al-qaida and ISIS...

They say they hammer them, but they don't. In reality they provide intelligence, drop supplies etc. Russia knows this, Iran knows this, Syria knows this and everyone with a deeper understanding of geopolitics knows this.

This question puzzled me for quite a while too. The "coalition"... *cough* US, does actually sometimes attack ISIS, like it did in Mosul. Other times it aids ISIS, often indirectly but sometimes directly. It's easy to name examples of that. So, the question is, how does that work in terms of maintaining a relationship between the two parties when there's sometimes armed conflict between them?

Well, I read an article in Counterpunch about three weeks or a month ago that had what seemed a pretty good explanation for that. I meant to post it in here, but I'm a lazy-ass and didn't do it. But, according to this this explanation, the "coalition" communicated a mandate to ISIS -- tacitly or perhaps even explicitly (on the D/L of course). The mandate had parameters. ISIS could expect non-interference in their activities from the coalition, and even assistance, as long as the parameters were adhered to. And, basically, that meant it should stick to attacking Assad's forces while also cooling it in regard to further, overly-zealous expansion into Iraq. Also, definitely stay the fuck out of certain other areas, like Mosul.

But, of course, trying to control ISIS is like trying to control Frankenstein's monster; it's tricky because the monster is unpredictable. Rampaging, it sometimes veers off in the wrong direction. In such instances you have to shove the flaming torch in its face to get it charging back toward those particular villagers you actually do want it to dismember and hurl into the river.

I can't recall reading an analysis regarding this, specifically, but it occurred to me that perhaps it's also the case that ISIS isn't a completely internally-cohesive hierarchy. Maybe there are factions that can start acting on their own initiatives, get out of line, and bring the coalition's flail of discipline upon itself. And, thus, the other factions get the message...

Not 100% sure about any of this, but for me it's serving as a working explanation.

BKP wrote:

Visc wrote:

starman wrote:

Visc wrote:
I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

It's great that Iran/Syria/Russia have broken ISIS. But why would the US hammer ISIS with airstrikes for years if it was a US proxy??! Peshmergas may be an American tool. But al-qaida and ISIS...

They say they hammer them, but they don't. In reality they provide intelligence, drop supplies etc. Russia knows this, Iran knows this, Syria knows this and everyone with a deeper understanding of geopolitics knows this.

This question puzzled me for quite a while too. The "coalition"... *cough* US, does actually sometimes attack ISIS, like it did in Mosul. Other times it aids ISIS, often indirectly but sometimes directly. It's easy to name examples of that. So, the question is, how does that work in terms of maintaining a relationship between the two parties when there's sometimes armed conflict between them?

Well, I read an article in Counterpunch about three weeks or a month ago that had what seemed a pretty good explanation for that. I meant to post it in here, but I'm a lazy-ass and didn't do it. But, according to this this explanation, the "coalition" communicated a mandate to ISIS -- tacitly or perhaps even explicitly (on the D/L of course). The mandate had parameters. ISIS could expect non-interference in their activities from the coalition, and even assistance, as long as the parameters were adhered to. And, basically, that meant it should stick to attacking Assad's forces while also cooling it in regard to further, overly-zealous expansion into Iraq. Also, definitely stay the fuck out of certain other areas, like Mosul.

But, of course, trying to control ISIS is like trying to control Frankenstein's monster; it's tricky because the monster is unpredictable. Rampaging, it sometimes veers off in the wrong direction. In such instances you have to shove the flaming torch in its face to get it charging back toward those particular villagers you actually do want it to dismember and hurl into the river.

I can't recall reading an analysis regarding this, specifically, but it occurred to me that perhaps it's also the case that ISIS isn't a completely internally-cohesive hierarchy. Maybe there are factions that can start acting on their own initiatives, get out of line, and bring the coalition's flail of discipline upon itself. And, thus, the other factions get the message...

Not 100% sure about any of this, but for me it's serving as a working explanation.

Actually, controlling ISIS (Daesh) is done very effectively. The monster is not unpredictable at all because the master has complete control over it, but the master doesn't want us to realize this. ISIS's every move from day one was in accordance with Israel/US goals in the region and the world. This includes even name changing - ISIL, IS, ISIS.

What US-led coalition did in Mosul was bomb the hell out of the city to completely destroy it and that's it. That way they had something to show to the world about their "fight against ISIS". In reality though, they evacuated ISIS and prevented the Iraqi army and especially Iraqi PMU (popular mobilization units, mostly supported by Iran) from fighting ISIS. Iraqi army is highly infilitrated by the US btw while PMU is not, so in many battles they didn't allow PMU to join and neither did PMU want to fight with US warplanes above their heads - spying for ISIS, "accidentally" bombing PMU and Iraqi army when they don't play by the US rules or advance too fast.

Anyway, these evacuations, redeployments and supply drops to ISIS by the US-led coalition happened all over Iraq and Syria troughout years and many eyewitnesses have confirmed this. Of course, you don't see this in mainstream or "alternative" media.

So forget Counterpunch and other questionable web sites and silly theories. Like I said, ISIS is US/Israel proxy and that's all there is to it.

BKP wrote:

Visc wrote:

starman wrote:

Visc wrote:
I take my hat off to Iran/Syria/Russia i.e. generals responsible for this strategy that checkmated US/Israel.

Btw, this should also be enough proof to see what and who ISIS is really working for, in case you didn't realize by now that ISIS is nothing more than US/Israel proxy (just like Al-Qaeda/FSA, SDF, Peshmerga)

It's great that Iran/Syria/Russia have broken ISIS. But why would the US hammer ISIS with airstrikes for years if it was a US proxy??! Peshmergas may be an American tool. But al-qaida and ISIS...

They say they hammer them, but they don't. In reality they provide intelligence, drop supplies etc. Russia knows this, Iran knows this, Syria knows this and everyone with a deeper understanding of geopolitics knows this.

This question puzzled me for quite a while too. The "coalition"... *cough* US, does actually sometimes attack ISIS, like it did in Mosul. Other times it aids ISIS, often indirectly but sometimes directly. It's easy to name examples of that. So, the question is, how does that work in terms of maintaining a relationship between the two parties when there's sometimes armed conflict between them?

Well, I read an article in Counterpunch about three weeks or a month ago that had what seemed a pretty good explanation for that. I meant to post it in here, but I'm a lazy-ass and didn't do it. But, according to this this explanation, the "coalition" communicated a mandate to ISIS -- tacitly or perhaps even explicitly (on the D/L of course). The mandate had parameters. ISIS could expect non-interference in their activities from the coalition, and even assistance, as long as the parameters were adhered to. And, basically, that meant it should stick to attacking Assad's forces while also cooling it in regard to further, overly-zealous expansion into Iraq. Also, definitely stay the fuck out of certain other areas, like Mosul.

But, of course, trying to control ISIS is like trying to control Frankenstein's monster; it's tricky because the monster is unpredictable. Rampaging, it sometimes veers off in the wrong direction. In such instances you have to shove the flaming torch in its face to get it charging back toward those particular villagers you actually do want it to dismember and hurl into the river.

I can't recall reading an analysis regarding this, specifically, but it occurred to me that perhaps it's also the case that ISIS isn't a completely internally-cohesive hierarchy. Maybe there are factions that can start acting on their own initiatives, get out of line, and bring the coalition's flail of discipline upon itself. And, thus, the other factions get the message...

Not 100% sure about any of this, but for me it's serving as a working explanation.

Actually, controlling ISIS (Daesh) is done very effectively. The monster is not unpredictable at all because the master has complete control over it, but the master doesn't want us to realize this. ISIS's every move from day one was in accordance with Israel/US goals in the region and the world. This includes even name changing - ISIL, IS, ISIS.

What US-led coalition did in Mosul was bomb the hell out of the city to completely destroy it and that's it. That way they had something to show to the world about their "fight against ISIS". In reality though, they evacuated ISIS and prevented the Iraqi army and especially Iraqi PMU (popular mobilization units, mostly supported by Iran) from fighting ISIS. Iraqi army is highly infilitrated by the US btw while PMU is not, so in many battles they didn't allow PMU to join and neither did PMU want to fight with US warplanes above their heads - spying for ISIS, "accidentally" bombing PMU and Iraqi army when they don't play by the US rules or advance too fast.

Anyway, these evacuations, redeployments and supply drops to ISIS by the US-led coalition happened all over Iraq and Syria troughout years and many eyewitnesses have confirmed this. Of course, you don't see this in mainstream or "alternative" media.

So forget Counterpunch and other questionable web sites and silly theories. Like I said, ISIS is US/Israel proxy and that's all there is to it.

^ Dubious that things work as neatly as that -- 100% control and predictability. After all, wahhabism is ultimately incompatible with "western" ideology such as it is (viewpoint/lifestyle, etc). Even America's good friends the Saudis, who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS, have participated in attacks directly against the US, probably even the famed 9/11 attack. At least that was strongly suggested within the (finally) declassified 28-pages of the 9/11 Commission report. Powerful US factions connected to Saudi oil $$ have been effectively fighting to keep blowback from that revelation contained. Then there's the steady drumbeat of fatal attacks against civilians in European NATO countries that ISIS likes to stake claim to.

So, it's ALL just a smoke-and-mirrors game neatly planned and orchestrated behind the scenes to the last detail by Mossad/CIA/M16/Pentagon and whomever else you care to throw into the pot of alphabet soup? If that's true, everyone should just surrender now because they're far more clever than previously imagined. Won't claim to know 100% either way, but like I said, I'm dubious about that.

No, it makes more sense to me that the likes of Al-Qaeda & ISIS are viewed as crude implements to be utilized or discarded, as varying circumstances necessitate. And, when the tool is wielded, it's usually ends up being like performing surgery with a shotgun.

And regarding Counterpunch, some of its writers I like better than others, but on the whole it's one of the best publications in alt-media today.

IS out of nowhere advancing in Hama once again.

#ISIS captured Talhan, Abu Hariq, Ma'saran, Abu al-Kusur & Umm Sahrij villages & recaptured Hajilah village from #HTS

#ISIS captured Aliya, Suruj, Abu Marw & Abu Khanadiq villages from #HTS

#ISIS recaptured Abu Khanadiq village & captured Abyan, Jubb Zrayq, Samiriyah, Judaydah & Wasitah villages as #HTS retreated

BKP wrote:^ Dubious that things work as neatly as that -- 100% control and predictability. After all, wahhabism is ultimately incompatible with "western" ideology such as it is (viewpoint/lifestyle, etc). Even America's good friends the Saudis, who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS, have participated in attacks directly against the US, probably even the famed 9/11 attack. At least that was strongly suggested within the (finally) declassified 28-pages of the 9/11 Commission report. Powerful US factions connected to Saudi oil $$ have been effectively fighting to keep blowback from that revelation contained. Then there's the steady drumbeat of fatal attacks against civilians in European NATO countries that ISIS likes to stake claim to.

So, it's ALL just a smoke-and-mirrors game neatly planned and orchestrated behind the scenes to the last detail by Mossad/CIA/M16/Pentagon and whomever else you care to throw into the pot of alphabet soup? If that's true, everyone should just surrender now because they're far more clever than previously imagined. Won't claim to know 100% either way, but like I said, I'm dubious about that.

And regarding Counterpunch, some of its writers I like better than others, but on the whole it's one of the best publications in alt-media today.

Wahhabism is cancer ideology created to destroy Islam by making it look like intolerant extremist religion instead of what it really is. Real Islam doesn't allow sects, there is no Shia, no Sunni, it doesn't matter what your pray style is, do you have a huge beard or not, it protects women, it protects the poor, it protects the community, etc. Jihad is not going to another country to blow yourself up shouting Allah is great because they are not Muslim or don't follow the "right sect". Jihad is something completely different and it is a practice that is not only present in Islam, but in many other culutures and belief systems. This is a huge subject, so I will stop at that.

Some brand it tinfoil hat conspiracy theory or something along those lines, but 9/11 attacks in US were indeed false flag events used to justify "war on terror" i.e. invading and destroying countries and groups standing on Israel's path. Were Saudis involved or not doesn't even matter. "Declassified 28-pages of the 9/11 Commission report" are complete BS and have nothing to do with reality. The truth will never be declassified. Besides, expecting that is just silly...

I'm not here to force feed you, I can just help you and everyone else think by sharing my knowledge.

Israel runs America (AIPAC among first organizations that comes up to my mind), they run Europe and most of the western world and even beyond. They infilitrated Russia (precisely Soviet Union) as well, but it appears Vladimir Putin has put a hold to that and Russia is apparently coming back.

Mossad's official motto is "By way of deception thou shalt do war" and they are pretty good at it. However they are far from invincible. One example is this war in Syria that they are losing after so much investment, effort and worldwide propaganda. It all fall apart and now they are playing one of the last cards they have left - Kurds (the attempt at Kurdish Rojava state was also foiled a few months back after Iraqi forces took over Kirkuk).
Another example that Israel is not invincible is 2006 war against Lebanon/Hezbollah where they simply got wrecked and forced to retreat even though they were much better armed, they had superior multi-state intelligence and the most advanced techology at their disposal. Of course they never admit their defeats and never really put themselves under the limelight because they have to keep their image of neutrality and, most importantly, invinicibility going strong.

Destroy the image and the enemy will die.