Amnesty International: bombardementen op Raqqa van VS coalitie hebben honderden burgers gedood.......

Amnesty kwam gisteren met de uitkomsten van een onderzoek in de Syrische stad Raqqa naar het aantal (massa-) moorden die de VS coalitie daar met bombardementen heeft begaan.....

Je weet waarschijnlijk nog wel dat o.a. De VN, een paar ngo's en een paar westerse landen de VS opriepen te stoppen met de bombardementen op de stad. Helaas aan dovemansoren, net als in het Iraakse West-Mosul ging m.n. de VS gewoon door met bombarderen..........*  

Amnesty spreekt over honderden doden, echter als ik me niet vergis werden er na de inname van de stad duizenden mensen vermist....... Het is als in het Iraakse West-Mosul, hoewel men daar na 'de bevrijding' hele huizenblokken heeft gebulldozerd , zonder eerst de lijken onder het puin vandaan te halen....... Ook daar gaf men toe een honderden burgerslachtoffers te hebben gemaakt, hoewel deskundigen zeggen dat het er minstens 30.000 moeten zijn......

90% van de bombardementen op Raqqa (en eerder in het Iraakse West-Mosul) werden door de VS uitgevoerd. Groot-Brittannië voerde 215 bombardementen uit op Raqqa en als bij eerdere bombardementen van GB (ook in Irak) stelt de legerleiding dat het geen burgerslachtoffers heeft gemaakt....... Het is dat 't allemaal zo triest en smerig is, anders zou je je daadwerkelijk doodlachen, jezus!!

Het aantal doden is moeilijk na te trekken, ten eerste daar men de overledenen binnen 24 uur moet begraven volgens islam voorschriften. Daarnaast waren journalisten niet welkom in Mosul en Raqqa (en andere gebombardeerde steden, bombardementen die volgens het Verdrag van Genève als oorlogsmisdaden moeten worden aangemerkt......)

Weet niet hoe het momenteel met Nederland zit, voeren wij nog bombardementen uit in Irak en verkenningsvluchten boven Syrië? Zo ja, dan wordt er in feite in de landen gemoord middels ons belastinggeld (en met F16 straaljagers, die volgens een aantal ministers uit de kabinetten Balkenende en Rutte 1 en 2, van ellende uit de lucht zouden vallen.....).... Vandaar dat we nu de meer dan waardeloze JSF (F35) van Lockheed Martin gaan kopen, tegen een godsvermogen aan belastinggeld........

Syria: US-led Coalition's aerial attacks in Raqqa killed hundreds of civilians - new report

The devastation in the city is as bad as any Amnesty has seen in decades of covering conflicts around the world © Amnesty International

First-hand investigations in the destroyed city reveal extent of civilian casualties, as Coalition’s ‘war of annihilation’ decimated extended families and neighbourhoods

‘On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars’ - Donatella Rovera

City was blitzed but ISIS fighters were allowed safe passage out of Raqqa in deal with Coalition and Kurdish forces 

UK carried out 215 airstrikes but claims it killed no civilians

‘The UK needs to come clean over its role in this carnage’ - Kate Allen

US-led Coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians - and injured thousands - in the Syrian city of Raqqa in the process of “liberating” them from the Islamic State armed group, Amnesty International said in a new report today, ahead of tomorrow’s one-year anniversary of the Raqqa offensive.

Amnesty researchers visited 42 Coalition airstrike sites across the ruined city and interviewed 112 civilian residents who survived the carnage while losing loved ones in the attacks.

The victims highlighted in Amnesty’s report cut across the city’s socio-economic spectrum and range in age from a one-year-old baby girl to a man in his 80s. 

Their harrowing stories and immense losses stand in stark contrast to the Coalition’s repeated claims that they took great pains to minimise civilian casualties. In September, at the height of the conflict, Coalition commander US Lt Gen Stephen Townsend wrote that “there has never been a more precise air campaign in the history of armed conflict”. Raqqa residents, such as airstrike survivor Munira Hashish, tell a different story: 

“Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn’t afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped.” 

She and her children eventually managed to escape through a minefield “by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us.”

Raqqa’s residents were trapped as fighting raged between ISIS militants and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters, supported by the Coalition’s air and artillery strikes. Meanwhile, ISIS mined escape routes and shot at civilians trying to flee. Hundreds of civilians were killed: some in their homes, some in the very places where they’d sought refuge, and others as they tried to escape. 

Amnesty’s research and Raqqa residents’ accounts - detailed in the 70-page report, ‘War of annihilation’: Devastating Toll on Civilians, Raqqa - throw into serious question the Coalition’s insistence that their forces did enough to minimise civilian harm. The report details four emblematic cases (see below) of civilian families brutally impacted by the aerial bombardment. 

Between them, they lost 90 relatives and neighbours - 39 from a single family - almost all killed by Coalition airstrikes. Amnesty believes the cases are part of a wider pattern and provide a strong prima facie case that many lethal Coalition air and artillery strikes were disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks carried out in violation of international humanitarian law and are potential war crimes.

Shortly before the military campaign, US Defence Secretary James Mattis spoke of a “war of annihilation” against ISIS in Raqqa, and from 6 June to 12 October 2017 the US-led Coalition operation - involving US, British and French forces - carried out tens of thousands of airstrikes. The US military said it fired 30,000 artillery rounds during the offensive, while its forces are known to have been responsible for more than 90% of the airstrikes. Much of the city was destroyed, with countless homes, private and public buildings and infrastructure reduced to rubble or damaged beyond repair.  

Amnesty has written to defence officials in the USA, UK and France seeking additional information about the report’s cases and other attacks, with Amnesty asking about Coalition tactics, specific means and methods of attack, choice of targets, and precautions taken in the planning and execution of attacks, and about any investigations carried out to date. 

Donatella Rovera, a Senior Crisis Response Adviser at Amnesty International, said:

“The Coalition’s claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb ISIS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. 

“On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars. 

“A senior US military official said that more artillery shells were launched into Raqqa than anywhere since the Vietnam war. Given that artillery shells have margin of error of over 100 metres, it is no surprise that the result was mass civilian casualties.

“When so many civilians are killed in attack after attack, something is clearly wrong, and to make this tragedy worse, so many months later the incidents have not been investigated. The victims deserve justice.”

Four Raqqa family case studies

The case of the Badran family illustrates how dire the situation became for civilians trapped in Raqqa. Over the course of several weeks, 39 family members were killed in four separate Coalition air strikes as they moved from place to place inside the city, desperately trying to avoid rapidly shifting frontlines.

“We thought the forces who came to evict Daesh [ISIS] would know their business and would target Daesh and leave the civilians alone. We were naïve. By the time we had realised how dangerous it had become everywhere, it was too late; we were trapped,” Rasha Badran told Amnesty. After several attempts to flee, she and her husband finally managed to escape, having lost their entire family, including their only child, a one-year-old girl named Tulip, whose tiny body they buried near a tree.

The Aswads were a family of hard-working traders in Raqqa. Some of them stayed behind to protect their belongings from looting, seeking shelter in their basement. But, on 28 June a Coalition air strike destroyed the building, killing eight civilians, mostly children. Another family member lost his life when he stepped on an ISIS mine when he returned to the city to try to recover the bodies days later. 

Despite repeated attempts to flee, the Hashish family lost 17 members, mostly women and children, over a two-week period in August. A Coalition air strike killed nine, seven died as they tried to flee via a road which had been mined by ISIS, and two others were killed by a mortar launched by SDF.

The fate of the Fayad family illustrates how a Coalition blitz during the final hours of the battle wiped out entire families in the Harat al-Badu area of central Raqqa, where ISIS fighters were known to be using civilians as human shields. The deaths of Mohammed “Abu Saif” Fayad and 15 family members and neighbours in Coalition airstrikes early on 12 October seem all the more senseless because, just hours later, the SDF and the Coalition agreed a deal with ISIS, granting remaining ISIS fighters safe passage out of Raqqa.

Benjamin Walsby, an Amnesty International Middle East Researcher, said:

“If the coalition and their SDF allies were ultimately going to grant ISIS fighters safe passage and impunity, what possible military advantage was there in destroying practically an entire city and killing so many civilians? Raqqa’s civilians are returning home to ruins, pulling loved ones out of rubble, and facing death or injury from mines, IEDs and unexploded ordnance. The Coalition’s refusal to acknowledge its role in creating this catastrophic situation adds insult to injury.”

UK forces carried out 215 airstrikes in Raqqa

According to the Ministry of Defence, UK forces carried out 215 airstrikes in Raqqa. Up until last month, UK ministers had repeatedly claimed that UK forces in Syria and Iraq had killed no civilians. On 2 May, the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said that a UK drone missile killed a civilian on a motorcycle in eastern Syria in March. Amnesty has written to the Ministry of Defence seeking detailed information over the UK’s airstrikes in Raqqa.

Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK's Director, said:

“Civilians in Raqqa have suffered grievously at the hands of Islamic State, but they’ve also been imperilled by the Coalition’s disproportionate aerial attacks. 

“The Coalition’s operations in Raqqa have killed hundreds and injured thousands of civilians and the UK needs to come clean over its role in this carnage.

“Having conducted more than 200 airstrikes in Raqqa, the UK needs to be able to show that its targeting was proportionate and that it took proper measures to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties in its joint operations with the US and others. Instead of repeating a mantra about there being ‘no evidence’ of civilian casualties from UK airstrikes, the MoD should publish proper data about its Raqqa attacks - dates, times, locations, weapons used and intended targets. 

“Crucially, ministers should explain how the UK has investigated the impact of its attacks in both Raqqa and Mosul. For example, has the UK carried out on-the-ground investigations at the sites it bombed and interviewed survivors and witnesses?

“With a Defence Committee set to examine Operation Shader, now is the time for the UK to demonstrate to the British public that the UK’s military role in Syria and Iraq has been responsible and lawful. The Government should establish a thorough, impartial investigation into all allegations of unlawful attacks and civilian casualties from UK operations in Raqqa and Mosul.”

Operation Shader is the operational code for the UK’s contribution to the multinational military operation against the Islamic State armed group in the Middle East. 

View latest press releases
=========================
Aan dit bericht van Amnesty is een petitie verbonden, gericht aan Trump, dus voor VS burgers >> hier de link voor VS burgers of andere geïnteresseerden.

* Bij de bevrijding van oost-Aleppo door het Syrische leger, stopten de Russen en dit leger al 2 maanden voor de uiteindelijke bevrijding met bombarderen, juist om burgerslachtoffers zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen.... Hiervoor was amper aandacht in de reguliere westerse media, later herhaalde e.e.a. zich bij de bevrijding van Oost-Ghouta, terwijl dezelfde media (en westerse politici) het uitschreeuwden het onaanvaardbaar te vinden dat Rusland en Syrië die stad bevrijdden van psychopathische moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen, in het westen aangeduid als 'gematigde rebellen....'

Zie ook: 'Voorbeeld BBC en AD propaganda inzake Idlib (Syrië)'

        en: 'VS vermoordde met bombardementen in augustus 433 burgers in Raqqa.......... Westerse media alweer stil.......'

        en: 'Raqqa >> BBC World Service en 'onafhankelijke journalistiek': 'Er zijn veel burgers omgekomen bij de strijd in de straten in Raqqa........''

        en: 'Raqqa door VS platgebombardeerd >> reguliere (massa-) media in de VS zijn er trots op......'

        en: 'Groot Brittannie gooit meer dan 3.400 bommen af, die niet 1 slachtoffer zouden hebben gemaakt......'

        en: 'Mosul verwoest door VS.........'

        en: 'US Airstrikes Killing Hundreds of Civilians in Syria’s Raqqa'

        en: 'Mosul, stad van lijken: vele honderden doden onder het puin'

        en: 'VS bombardementen op Raqqa moorden hele families uit..........'

        en: 'VN waarschuwt de VS voor het maken van een onacceptabel aantal Syrische burgerslachtoffers met haar bombardementen.......'

        en: 'VS weigert op het VN verzoek in te gaan tot het stoppen met bombardementen op burgerdoelen in Raqqa..........'

        en: 'Raqqa, een strijd als om West-Mosul, echter met geheel andere media aandacht..........'

        en: 'Bombarderen was een probleem in Mosul, maar niet bij het nieuwe Iraakse/VS offensief.......'

        en: 'Kinderen in Irak vermoord middels VS terreur.......'

        en: 'Honderden burgerslachtoffers in Mosul door VS bombardementen, ofwel grootschalige terreur......'

        en: 'Mass Media Siege: Comparing Coverage Of Mosul and Aleppo' (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

       en: 'After Mosul’s “Liberation,” Horror of US Siege Continues to Unfold' (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

       en: 'Mosul, het verschil in berichtgeving vergeleken met de bevrijding van Oost-Aleppo...........'

       en: 'Iraakse strijdmacht gaf grif toe dat tot hun orders voor West-Mosul ook het vermoorden van vrouwen en kinderen behoorde........' 

NAVO landen bouwen illegale bases in Syrië...........

Ongelofelijk maar waar: NAVO leden VS en Frankrijk gaan geheel illegaal permanente militaire bases bouwen in het noordoosten van Syrië, GB bouwt zelf geen bases in Syrië maar maakt gebruik van de Franse en VS bases........ Samen met deze nieuwe bases, zullen de VS, GB en Frankrijk nog meer militairen naar Syrie struren 

Daarmee behoort ook Nederland tot de zwaar misdadige of beter gezegd terroristische organisatie die men NAVO noemt, waar we godbetert ook nog eens een enorme berg belastinggeld aan spenderen....... Het bouwen van een militaire basis op het grondgebied van een autonoom, soeverein land en tegen de wil van dit land is een oorlogsmisdaad van formaat!

Uiteraard komen de bewuste terreurstaten met het excuus dat men verdere terreur in Syrië wil voorkomen, terwijl de VS, GB en Frankrijk wel samenwerken met terreurgroepen ofwel met moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen, kortom groepen waarbij de legers van de 3 voornoemde landen en de rest van de NAVO zich prima thuis voelen.......

Natuurlijk gaat het om een andere zaken: niet als laatste olie! Het gebied waar de bases gebouwd zullen worden ligt in een olierijk gebied.......... Een nog onbekende oliemaatschappij uit de VS zou al olie verkopen in de regio....... Daarnaast wordt met deze bases voldaan aan de wens van Israël om Syrië op te delen, ofwel de Balkanisering van Syrië, als één van de eerste voorwaarden daartoe zet men in op het afzetten van de regering Assad.......  

Nog een opvallend gegeven: het gebied dat de eerder genoemde westerse landen controleren, beschikt over de grootste watervoorraad in Syrië.........

Hoe is het mogelijk dat de rest van de wereld deze terreurstaten hun gang laten gaan, waarvoor hebben we de VN nog? Om Rusland, China, Noord-Korea en Iran de les te lezen??

US, UK and France Establishing New Military Bases in Syria

May 30, 2018 at 10:43 pm

Written by Truth In Media

The coalition of the US, UK and France are establishing new military bases throughout Northern Syria in support of its Kurdish-majority proxy army, angering nearby Turkey and cementing the coalition’s hold over Syria’s most oil rich region.

(TIM) — Despite the fact that President Trump recently considered withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria, the United States— along with its allies the United Kingdom and France— are doubling down and expanding their military presence in Northeastern Syria by establishing new military bases near the town of Manbij. Reports of the bases first broke last month, but were recently confirmed by Reuters. The bases are believed to be part of a wider effort by the U.S./U.K./France coalition to aid its military proxy force in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in its “resistance” to the Turkish government.

Turkey has long maintained that the SDF, which is largely composed of members of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), are terrorists. The U.S. announcement earlier this year that they would be using the SDF to build a “border force” subsequently led Turkey to invade parts of Northern Syria previously controlled by the SDF with help from its own proxy force in Syria, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

After Turkey took control of Afrin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he was considering removing YPG/SDF forces from Manbij as well, prompting the coalition forces to consolidate their positions. With the coalition now beefing up its military presence to prevent Turkey from encroaching further, Syria is set to become a new sore point in Turkey’s relationship with NATO and the West.

According to reports, the military bases are located throughout the Manbij region, with the U.S. having at least two bases while the French are constructing one. The U.K. does not have its own base, but its soldiers are known to be present in the area and to work with U.S. and French troops stationed in Manbij.

Helil Bozi, the commander of the Military Council of Manbij of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), told Sputnik that “the U.S. has deployed its Special Forces units near the Sajur River thereby setting a red line the crossing of which will be seen by the [U.S.-led] coalition forces as an attack and will prompt retaliatory actions,” noting that the increase in the coalition’s military presence was a direct result of Turkey’s prior statements regarding Manbij.

Though locals have claimed that the presence of the coalition members of the military are aimed at Turkey, they are also likely to prevent Syrian government forces from retaking the area. Now that the Syrian government has successfully removed terrorist groups from Damascus as well as other key parts of the country, there has been speculation that the Syrian military would turn its focus to areas of the country occupied by foreign powers.

Indeed, the Syrian government is very interested in recuperating the area currently occupied by the coalition and nominally controlled by the Kurds as it holds 95% of the entire country’s oil and gas potential. Under Kurdish leadership, an unknown U.S. company is already extracting and selling oil in the region, thus making it unlikely that the U.S. would willingly leave the area. The U.S. is also unlikely to leave its investment in the SDF behind, having recently allocated $550 million to arm and train the group over the next year.

In addition, the area also boasts the country’s largest fresh water reservoirs and over 60% of its agricultural land, making it an invaluable bargaining chip in determining the future of Syria, a future that coalition powers hope will remove the current Syrian government from power and replace it with a more Western-friendly government.

However, the aims of the coalition appear directed more toward partition than regime change. The U.S. has long sought to divide Syria in order to take control of the country’s resource rich Northeast and to isolate the Syrian government and, by extension, its regional allies such as Iran.

Though the U.S. has played on the hopes of Kurdish nationalists, it has long established plans for an authoritarian Wahhabist enclave in Northeastern Syria according to a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency document from 2012 and, more recently, courting the Saudis to “rebuild” the area. Furthermore, the fact that the SDF includes militias composed of “retrained” ISIS fighters also underscores that the coalition is more interested in controlling the region than aiding a Kurdish nationalism project.

Though advertised as an effort to “protect” the Kurds, the establishment of new American

and French military bases in Northern Syria appear to serve as protection of the coalition’s regional ambitions and plans for the region.

By Whitney Webb / Republished with permission / TruthInMedia.com / Report a typo

Rusland heeft geen aanval uitgevoerd op VS troepen in Syrië.....

Op 7 februari jl. zouden Syrische troepen, gesteund door Russische adviseurs en huurlingen een basis van de Syrische democratische strijdmacht (SDF, of Syrian Democratic Forces) hebben aangevallen. Het gaat hier om 'een door de VS gesteunde basis' waar zich ook VS militairen dan wel adviseurs zouden hebben opgehouden of (nog) ophouden. Met hulp van VS luchtstrijdkrachten werd de aanval afgeslagen......

Vreemd genoeg vielen aan de kant van de aanvallers meer dan 100 strijders, voornamelijk Russen en viel er aan de kant van de door de VS gesteunde strijders (SDF is een terreurorganisatie) en VS militairen niet één slachtoffer, iets dat totaal ongeloofwaardig is.

Darius Shahtahmasebi stelt na ophef in de VS, waar Rusland wordt beschuldigt van het willens en wetens aanvallen van VS militairen, dat Rusland niet van de partij was bij de aanval, daar het hier ging om huurlingen en 'militaire aannemers'.

Voorts stelt Shahtahmasebi terecht dat Rusland nog steeds op volkomen legitieme basis aanwezig is in Syrië, dit in tegenstelling tot de VS. Daarnaast is het uiteraard een normale zaak dat het reguliere Syrische leger, illegaal bezet Syrisch gebied wil heroveren, zo stelt ook Shahtahmasebi.

Rusland heeft intussen contracten gesloten met de Syrische overheid over de winning van gas en olie, ook in het gebied waar de aanval plaats vond........... Gezien dat feit zou het niet vreemd zijn te veronderstellen, dat de VS als een bok op de haverkist het gebied koste wat kost wil behouden 'voor de SDF' (ofwel voor zichzelf) en daarbij alle 'vijanden' zal afslachten, die maar in de buurt durven te komen van dit gebied.......

Eerder in 2017 heeft de VS zich ook al geroerd met aanvallen in dit gebied, toen hielp de VS de SDF met het veroveren van dit gebied en 'om deze positie te verdedigen' blijft de VS illegaal gestationeerd in dit gebied..... Lees: de VS blijft aanwezig om olie en gas belangen van oliemaatschappijen in de VS te verdedigen.....

Shahtahmasebi stelt voorts dat wanneer Rusland een olierijk gebied in de VS illegaal zou bezetten en VS troepen zouden zich daartegen verzetten, niemand zou zeggen dat de Russen worden aangevallen (daar zij zich immers illegaal op het gebied van de VS zouden bevinden). Beetje vreemde redenering, daar een aanval nu eenmaal een aanval is, in wat voor omstandigheid dan ook, je spreekt in die gevallen van wel of niet gerechtvaardigd geweld en ja dan kan je ook spreken van (grootschalige) terreur als dit geweld niet gerechtvaardigd is, terreur waar de VS zich keer op keer schuldig aan maakt in Syrië, zoals ook weer in dit geval......

Dat de VS niets te zoeken heeft in Syrië is een feit, zeker als je ziet, dat de VS aan de wieg stond van IS, deze terreurgroep heeft vervoerd en vrije doorgang heeft verleend richting Syrië, waar de VS deze psychopaten ook nog eens deels heeft bewapend, terwijl de VS tegelijkertijd zogenaamd IS bestrijdt en 'waarvoor de VS het nodig acht in Syrië te blijven......' (zoals eerder gezegd: dit is vooral in het belang van de oliemaatschappijen in de VS...)

Jammer dat Shahtahmasebi daar geen aandacht aan besteed, zoals hij ook al niets zegt over het ontbreken van slachtoffers aan 'VS zijde', bij de hiervoor genoemde aanval..

In één ding heeft hij volkomen gelijk: Rusland heeft geen aanval geopend op de VS militairen. Alle acties van de VS tegen het reguliere Syrische leger en/of de Russen, zijn oorlogsmisdaden en daarmee grootschalige terreur! Je weet wel het soort terreur waar de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici zich niet druk om maken, dit gebeurd pas als VS terreur elders terreur uitlokt, zoals wraakacties in de straten van de EU......

Don’t Be a Moron: Russia Didn’t Attack US Troops in Syria

February 19, 2018 at 10:08 am

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On February 16, 2018, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake published an article entitled “Don’t Be Fooled: Russia Attacked U.S. Troops in Syria.”

For context, the U.S.-led coalition conducted air and artillery strikes against what was believed to be pro-government forces in Syria on February 7, 2018, in response to an “unprovoked attack” launched by these pro-regime forces. Not long after, reports began emerging that significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over 100 dead and wounded, though Russia denied this at first. As the evidence began to mount, the accepted version of events on both sides was that those involved were Russian mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.

When asked about the incident initially, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said he had “no idea why they [pro-government forces] would attack there, the forces were known to be there, obviously the Russians knew.”

“We have always known that there are elements in this very complex battle space that the Russians did not have, I would call it, control of,” he added.

In response to this conundrum, Lake wrote:

“Now, it should be said that Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, is a very smart man. His perplexity in this case is probably what Plato called a ‘noble lie,’ a falsehood spoken by a leader to achieve a greater social good. If Mattis acknowledges the obvious — that the Kremlin authorized a direct assault on a U.S.-sponsored base by non-uniformed personnel — he risks an escalation spiral in Syria. Better to express bewilderment and give Russian President Vladimir Putin a chance to back down and deny culpability, which he ended up doing despite the heavy casualties suffered by his mercenaries.”

Lake added:

“But make no mistake: There is overwhelming evidence that those Russian contractors were working at the behest of the Kremlin. What’s more, the Russians knew U.S. military personnel were in Deir Ezzor, which has been part of successive agreements to separate, or ‘deconflict,’ forces fighting in Syria.”

First, if the Kremlin did actually give the go-ahead for the advancement of troops in that particular area, it is already quite apparent that the aim of the pro-government troops in question, including their Russian component, was to try to seize a lucrative Syrian oil field in the vicinity. CBS reported that according to Pentagon officials, the Russians did, indeed, have their sights on these oil fields. CNN also reported this before it was made aware that the Syrian troops involved Russian contractors.

Russia was recently granted exclusive rights over Syria’s oil and gas production, and Deir Ez-zor is Syria’s most oil-rich region. So, with regard to the perplexity as to why Syrian and/or Russian personnel would launch an offensive, the reasoning is already well-known. The U.S. provided air cover for Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to retain a substantial portion of this area in 2017 and retains its military presence there in order to enable SDF’s occupation to continue.

Second, and most important, if Syrian forces, backed by Russian forces (whether they are official troops or not), decide to launch an offensive to retake one of its oil fields, it is not the U.S. that is under the attack. The U.S. is an invading force that has been bombing Syria since 2014 without legal justification and continues to maintain an illegal military presence in order to carry out its dangerous foreign policy agenda. It wouldn’t matter if the U.S. had one troop on the ground in Syria and if Russia had ten thousand — Russia’s presence has been sanctioned under international law and America’s hasn’t.

Yes, Russia knew U.S. personnel were in Deir Ez-zor. But that doesn’t mean Russia and Syria should be barred from reclaiming the territory under international law. If Russia had set up an illegal base in an oil-rich part of the U.S. and American troops launched an offensive with their allies to retake the territory, no one in their right mind would try to suggest that Russian troops were subsequently under attack. In fact, if this particular scenario were to play out, the NATO charter would require all of America’s NATO allies to come to its aid against this hypothetical Russian aggression.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks of the Syrian government and the various allegations against it. Even for the sake of argument, we should assume that all of the allegations against Bashar al-Assad are true. It doesn’t make a difference.

The U.S. has attacked Syria, and it could be the case that Syria and its allies want to drive them out, as is their right. That’s the only way to properly view this issue if we want to maintain a workable system of international mutual respect and cooperation. Right now, there only appears to be one flawed system: the U.S. and its allies doing whatever they like until they are eventually confronted by a formidable adversary that possesses nuclear weapons.

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

====================================

Zie ook: 'Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als 'false flag' operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding........'

        en: 'Hondsdolle VS valt Russische tank aan in poging de Russen te provoceren......'

        en: 'VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas 'door Assad', ofwel: alweer 'fake news' van de massamedia doorgeprikt!'

        en: 'Syrië: VS en Israëlische agressie dreigt de wereld in een oorlog te storten......'

        en:  'VS coalitie valt Syrische troepen aan......... Ofwel de strijd van de VS tegen IS, is in feite een strijd tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Assad........'

Syrië: VS en Israëlische agressie dreigt de wereld in een oorlog te storten......

De door de VS geleidde coalitie heeft met haar aanval op strijders voor het legitieme Syrische leger een grens overschreden die het risico op een oorlog tussen de VS en Rusland een heel stuk dichterbij brengt...... Je zal begrijpen dat wanneer dit gebeurd er sprake zal zijn van de Derde Weredloorlog, immers China zal zich zonder meer achter Rusland scharen tegen de ongebreidelde VS agressie (of zeg maar gerust; terreur)....

De VS heeft intussen 2.000 militairen op Syrisch grondgebied en is daarmee illegaal aanwezig in dit land, het lamme excuus voor de hiervoor genoemde aanval dat het hier om zelfverdediging gaat, is zo bezien al helemaal een gotspe!!

Israël heeft intussen laten zien het niet eens te zijn met de huidige status quo en heeft zich nu volledig in de Syrische oorlog gemengd, dit zogenaamd na een aanval met een drone op 'Israëlisch grondgebied', een duidelijke false flag operatie met de bedoeling de eigen terreur in Syrië te rechtvaardigen...... Eerdere bombardementen voerde Israël zogenaamd uit, om Iraanse wapentransporten richting Libanon te voorkomen, echter de grootste schade schijnt toch te zijn toegebracht aan het Syrische leger en groepen die samen met dit leger tegen IS hebben gestreden en strijden........

De corrupte Israëlische premier Netanyahu heeft de afgelopen tijd wekelijks minstens één keer Syrië en Iran gewaarschuwd voor aanvallen van Israël als men niet zou inbinden en bijvoorbeeld zou proberen gebieden aan de Golanhoogten te heroveren, hetzelfde gebied dat Israël NB aan de andere kant van de grens illegaal heeft bezet ...... Eerder lapte Israël IS strijders op in hetzelfde gebied, zodat ze daarna verder konden vechten tegen het reguliere Syrische leger, ook voerde Israël op verzoek van IS bombardementen uit op stellingen van het Syrische leger......

Nu is nog de vraag hoelang Rusland zal blijven toezien, voordat het Israëlische en/of VS jagers zal aanvallen........

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi, zoals weergegeven op Anti-Media:

The World Is on the Brink of War Once Again as All Hell Breaks Loose in Syria

February 8, 2018 at 11:53 am

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — The U.S.-led coalition conducted air and artillery strikes against pro-regime forces in Syria on Wednesday, killing over 100 pro-government fighters, CNN reports.

According to the coalition’s statement, the strikes were carried out after forces allied with the Syrian government “initiated an unprovoked attack” against what CNN termed “a well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters where coalition advisers were working with US-backed Syrian fighters.”

CNN dubbed the U.S.-led strike “defensive” even though U.S. forces have no legal authority to be in Syria in the first place, something the New York Times was forced to admit a few weeks ago. According to official numbers, there are some 2,000 U.S. troops embedded with SDF forces in Syria, and Syria has deemed these U.S. troops to be an invading force. Technically, the act of violating Syria’s sovereignty and killing over 100 of its troops in a flagrant act of war makes the U.S. the aggressor — not the defender — in this scenario. (If you are having trouble understanding this, try reversing the U.S. and Syria in the scenario and seeing how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot).

According to the Marine Corps Times, the coalition service members were acting in an “advise, assist and accompany capacity” when the attack occurred, eight kilometers east of the current Euphrates River deconfliction line. However, U.S. troops in Syria have been doing a lot more than advising and assisting on the ground. According to Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, one particular Marine battalion “fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war.”

“In five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets, killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times in January.

The Marine Corps Times called it an “explosive revelation” that shed light on the “immense level of lethal force brought to Raqqa and northern Syria,” noting that in comparison, only 34,000 artillery rounds had been fired in the invasion of Iraq.

Moving back to the matter at hand, CNN reported that the attack on the U.S. base in Syria involved some 500 pro-Assad forces using artillery, mortar fire, and Russian-made tanks. According to the military official CNN quoted, no U.S. or SDF forces were killed in the attack, but the coalition still saw it fit to retaliate by killing at least 100 Syrian government forces. It is indisputably and particularly hypocritical that there is no international outrage over this act of aggression when one compares the media hysteria over a country like North Korea, which is currently bombing no one.

The official also stated that the coalition suspected the pro-government forces attacked because they have their sights set on seizing the lucrative oil fields in the area, which the SDF had previously taken after ISIS’ control over the area collapsed.

Despite the fact that this territory belongs to Syria, the U.S. is providing air cover for the SDF to take hold of this oil-rich region. The SDF doesn’t have an air force of its own, but if it can start generating substantial revenue from these oil fields, then it may be able to start buying more and more military equipment from the U.S.

The other option, of course, is that the U.S. can provide air cover for the SDF in the region indefinitely, something that could pose a problem in the distant future if the U.S. military presence has no determined end in sight. As it stands, the U.S. is proposing it stay in Syria until a political resolution sees the Assad government unseated.

The official also explained that Russia had been informed of the presence of pro-regime forces in the area before the attack and that Russia assured the coalition they would not engage with coalition forces. Russia responded to the attack almost immediately, condemning the U.S. military presence in Syria as “illegal” and accusing the U.S. of trying to steal Syrian oil.

“The recent incident once again shows that the United States’ illegal military presence in Syria is actually aimed at taking control of the country’s economic assets and not at fighting against the ISIS international terror group,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement, as quoted by the Washington Post (WaPo). It should also be noted that these incidents of aggression do nothing to aid Russia’s current and ongoing attempt to establish a peace process of its own.

At around the same time, Turkish media reported that Turkey’s Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister had been in contact with both Iran and Russia. This is remarkable because these communications have preceded a scheduled visit to Turkey this weekend by U.S. national security advisor H.R. McMaster. Iran and Russia were also reportedly in contact with each other at around the same time, as well. Could it be that this triangle of emerging power brokers in Syria deciding the fate of Syria without the involvement of the U.S. has prompted the American military to take drastic measures to disrupt this developing alliance? Even with opposing aims in Syria — and even with Turkey’s recent invasion of Syrian territory — Iran, Turkey, and Russia have all managed to find some common ground without resorting to a confrontation with one another.

Accusing the U.S. of “mission-creep,” former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said “[t]he Americans have managed through their diplomatic strategy to isolate themselves to the point where Turkey, Iran and Syria all agree that what the U.S. is doing in Syria is bad.”

Further, before the American-led air attack took place, Russia accused the U.S. of attempting to partition Syria, an accusation that appears to be grounded in reality. CNN has acknowledged that the U.S. did not strike pro-regime forces that crossed back to their assigned territory of the Euphrates River even though all of the territory technically belongs to the government under international law. In other words, the U.S. is happy to leave Syrian troops to their own devices provided they stay within the areas the U.S. has assigned to them. How else could this be described, if not a partition?

Further, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), an international NGO whose mission is to prevent and resolve deadly conflict, Iran and Israel are only one “miscalculation” away from war as both sides have been seen to escalate their military interventions in Syria. The ICG identified Russia as the only real mediator between the two countries and urged Russia to play a more active role in averting a potential escalation.

Further, also on Wednesday, the BBC reported that Israeli warplanes had attacked a military complex in Damascus. A Syrian military statement reportedly said its air defense systems had blocked most of the missiles, but it is not clear if there were any significant casualties. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reportedly visited the disputed Golan Heights territory at the same time, warning his enemies not to test Israel’s resolve. This was a clear reference to Iran and Hezbollah, which is prominent in both Lebanon and Syria.

In what can be described as an amazing coincidence, these air attacks by both Israel and the U.S. have taken place off the back of a joint military exercise between the United States and Israel, which simulated a joint U.S.-Israeli response to a rocket attack by Hezbollah.

Were these recent attacks by Israel and the U.S. a one-time incident in response to the threats allegedly posed by pro-Assad forces, including Hezbollah? Or are both these countries building up to something more confrontational?

All things considered, it seems likely we will find out where this conflict is headed in the not too distant future, especially given the potential for one miscalculated move to lead to something extremely volatile. As it stands, it should be noted that in the meantime, it is not Syria that is attacking any other state or launching a war against any other country.

With the assistance of the media, the U.S. and Israel continue to bomb Syrian territory in direct contravention of international law, now killing and wounding significant numbers of the Syrian government’s armed forces without any significant journalistic or international opposition.

One can only hope that someone heeds the advice of the ICG and attempts to de-escalate this conflict before it transforms itself into a regional powder keg involving at least three or more nuclear powers.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Zie ook: 'VS coalitie valt Syrische troepen aan......... Ofwel de strijd van de VS tegen IS, is in feite een strijd tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Assad........'

        en:  'VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog........'  

        en: 'Rusland heeft geen aanval uitgevoerd op VS troepen in Syrië.....'

        en: 'Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als 'false flag' operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding........'

        en: 'Hondsdolle VS valt Russische tank aan in poging de Russen te provoceren......'

        en: 'VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas 'door Assad', ofwel: alweer 'fake news' van de massamedia doorgeprikt!'