Words sentences that are offensive

[rooster59]

Syria's Assad defies U.S., presses southwest assault

By Angus McDowall and Tom Perry

 

FILE PHOTO: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gestures during an interview with Iranian channel al-Alam News in Damascus, Syria in this handout released on June 13, 2018. SANA/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian government helicopters dropped barrel bombs on opposition areas of the southwest on Friday for the first time in a year, a war monitor and rebel officials said, in defiance of U.S. demands that President Bashar al-Assad halt the assault.

 

Assad has sworn to recapture the area bordering Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and the army began ramping up an assault there this week, threatening a "de-escalation" zone agreed by the United States and Russia last year.

 

The United States on Thursday reiterated its demand that the zone be respected, warning Assad and his Russian allies of "serious repercussions" of violations. It accused Damascus of initiating air strikes, artillery and rocket attacks.

 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Friday that the Syrian military escalation "unambiguously violates" the de-escalation arrangement and that more than 11,000 people had already been displaced.

 

"Russia will ultimately bear responsibility for any further escalations in ‎Syria," Haley said in a statement.

 

A big offensive risks a wider escalation that could draw the United States deeper into the war. The southwest is of strategic concern to U.S.-allied Israel, which has this year stepped up attacks on Iran-backed militia allied to Assad.

 

The barrel bombs targeted a cluster of rebel-held towns including Busra al-Harir northeast of Deraa city, where the government attack threatens to bisect a finger of rebel ground jutting northwards into land held by the government.

 

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor, said Syrian government helicopters had dropped more than 12 barrel bombs on the area, causing damage but no deaths.

 

Abu Bakr al-Hassan, spokesman for the rebel group Jaish al-Thawra, which fights under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), said the munitions had been dropped on three towns and villages, and that war planes had hit another.

 

"I believe (the bombardment) is testing two things: the steadfastness of the FSA fighters and the degree of U.S. commitment to the de-escalation agreement in the south," he told Reuters.

 

Syrian state television said on Friday that army units had targeted "lairs and movements of terrorists" in the area.

 

The Syrian government has denied using barrel bombs, containers filled with explosive material that are dropped from helicopters and which cannot be accurately aimed. However, United Nations investigators have extensively documented its use of them during the conflict.

 

While government forces have made heavy use of artillery and rockets in the assault, they have yet to draw on the kind of air power that was critical to the recovery of other rebel-held areas. Russian warplanes have yet to take part, rebels say.

 

Still, Russia's ambassador to Lebanon was quoted as saying that Russia was helping Damascus to recover the south.

 

"The Syrian army now, with support from Russian forces, is recovering its land in the south and restoring the authority of the Syrian state," Alexander Zasypkin told the pro-Hezbollah newspaper al-Akhbar.

 

"Israel has no justification to carry out any action that obstructs the fight against terrorism," he added.

 

HOSTILE FORCE

 

A rebel commander in the south accused Iran of trying to torpedo the de-escalation agreement and vowed fierce resistance. "We possess many weapons," said Colonel Nassim Abu Arra, commander of the Youth of Sunna Forces group.

 

Rebels in the southwest have received support including arms from Assad's foreign foes during the seven-year-long war.

 

Analysts of the conflict believe this support continued even after U.S. President Donald Trump decided last year to shut down a military aid programme run by the Central Intelligence Agency, though it may have been scaled back.

 

Assad has this year recaptured the last remaining enclaves of insurgent territory near the capital Damascus and the city of Homs, including the densely populated eastern Ghouta region.

 

But there are still large areas outside his control. Apart from the southwest, the rebels also hold a swathe of northwest Syria.

Insurgent groups backed by Turkey hold parts of the northern border area.

 

And the quarter of Syria east of the Euphrates is controlled by an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias supported by the United States. The United States also has a base at Tanf, near Syria's borders with Iraq and Jordan, which controls the Damascus-Baghdad highway.

 

On Thursday a commander in the regional alliance backing Assad said a U.S. strike had killed a Syrian army officer near Tanf. However, the Pentagon said a U.S.-backed Syrian rebel group had engaged "an unidentified hostile force" near Tanf, without casualties on either side.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-23

[Srikcir]

Another Trump success story.

Are you tired of winning?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Another Trump success story.

Are you tired of winning?

 

Can't rightly say this is Trump's doing. Most of the mess was already present during Obama's term. Not like he dealt with things a whole lot better. But then it's debatable if there are any easy answers there.

[quandow]

On 6/23/2018 at 6:40 AM, rooster59 said:

A big offensive risks a wider escalation that could draw the United States deeper into the war.

DRAW the U.S. deeper into the war?!? The MIC SALIVATES at the merest THOUGHT of escalating ANY conflict.

 

BTW, Murikkka has not officially declared war on ANY country since 1941 yet drops on average 121 bombs per day. Isn't that the very definition of a terrorist attack?

[Morch]

 

@quandow

 

No, it  isn't.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

No, it  isn't.

It depends upon at which end of the bomb delivery you are.

[Chomper Higgot]

A bit more information:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/24/youre-on-your-own-us-tells-syrian-rebels-as-assad-goes-on-offensive

[Morch]

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

No, it doesn't.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Morch

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, it doesn't.

Listen up Morch, the definition of ‘Terrorism’ is open to interpretation:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/25/animal-activists-minks-domestic-terrorism-charges#comment-56367843

 

Oh But the people on the receiving end of a bomb delivery ‘shalt not’ acuse their bombers of terrorism.

 

You, the US and it’s allies don’t own the definition.

 

[Edit] Here’s another one:

https://corpwatch.org/article/climate-activists-slapped-terrorism-charges-devon-energy-protest

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[quandow]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

No, it  isn't.

Oh, that's convincing.

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

No, it  isn't.

yes it is.

[Morch]

Apparently, some posters have trouble grasping the topic isn't actually about bizarre or partisan views on terrorism. But that's alright - the US was mentioned, so guess it's as good a reason for bash as any, regardless of how irrelevant the comments are.

[quandow]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

Apparently, some posters have trouble grasping the topic isn't actually about bizarre or partisan views on terrorism. But that's alright - the US was mentioned, so guess it's as good a reason for bash as any, regardless of how irrelevant the comments are.

Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation." The U.S. is currently dropping 121 bombs per day without having issued a declaration of war since 1941. This tangential view of the article is neither bizarre nor partisan - it's a fact the U.S. is illegally bombing and many times retired military leaders have admitted they weren't in the business of "saving democracy," rather they were there to sell weapons and secure natural resources in the interest of America. That's EXACTLY what's happening in Syria.

[Morch]

 

@quandow

 

Only that's not "exactly" what's happening in Syria - not by a long-shot. And more to the point, it isn't what the OP is about.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Morch

[quandow]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

Only that's not "exactly" what's happening in Syria - not by a long-shot. And more to the point, it isn't what the OP is about.

You've tried that weary rebuttal before and each time I have to remind you that any analogy eventually falls short - those 5 baht coins are "exactly" the same. Of course they're not "exactly" the same, but for the sake this argument, yes - that's "exactly" what is happening in Syria. It's a proxy war for the sake of dropping bombs for profit and expanding the American Empire and what the underlying vein of this article is really all about.

Edited June 25, 2018 by quandow

[Morch]

 

@quandow

 

Well, if you wouldn't use faulty "analogies", they would be pointed out to be such. Up to you. Either way, no - not "exactly" the same no matter how you  spin things.

 

Your argument would necessitate ignoring certain facts - such as the US not actually being currently massively involved or present in Syria. Or that Russia is a main beneficiary both strategically and in terms of resulting arms sales.

 

Guess you didn't bother reading the OP. It got little to do with the narrative you  push, but rather deals with Assad's offensive in southern Syria, including areas previously designated as "deescalation zones". A link provided above by another poster suggest that the US does not intend to provide support for Syria opposition forces under attack. Guess they didn't get your memo.

 

[quandow]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

Well, if you wouldn't use faulty "analogies", they would be pointed out to be such. Up to you. Either way, no - not "exactly" the same no matter how you  spin things.

 

Your argument would necessitate ignoring certain facts - such as the US not actually being currently massively involved or present in Syria. Or that Russia is a main beneficiary both strategically and in terms of resulting arms sales.

 

Guess you didn't bother reading the OP. It got little to do with the narrative you  push, but rather deals with Assad's offensive in southern Syria, including areas previously designated as "deescalation zones". A link provided above by another poster suggest that the US does not intend to provide support for Syria opposition forces under attack. Guess they didn't get your memo.

 

Faulty analogies? That's just your opinion and smells like any other.

 

Ignoring facts? No, that's your take here. The U.S. is deeply involved in Syria and your denying it leads me to believe you're heavily invested in Halliburton and a warhawk apologist.

 

Again, your guesses/assumptions are leading you down the wrong path. You really think the U.S. carries out its promises? I "guess" you haven't been keeping up with current events. Cute condescension - "didn't get my memo." You're usually better than this, having a bad day?

[Morch]

 

@quandow

 

Analogies which do not apply are faulty analogies. If you have issues with them being called out, find better ones.

 

And yes, ignoring facts (or rather, making up alternative ones). Relative to its involvement elsewhere (even in the region) the US is not currently heavily invested in Syria. There aren't a whole lot of troops on the ground, there are no major arms sales, and there is not a whole lot of obvious strategic gains at hand. Relative to Russia's involvement in Syria, the US is currently a sideshow in every aspect. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not doesn't change facts. Same goes for your irrelevant and bizarre personal comments.

 

Hard to tell what you're on about, or if you actually have an argument other than a general US bash. Haven't said anything about the US "carrying out promises", and no idea how this applies to my posts or the OP. The link posted earlier suggests an opposite course of action to what you claim.

 

 

[quandow]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@quandow

 

Analogies which do not apply are faulty analogies. If you have issues with them being called out, find better ones.

 

And yes, ignoring facts (or rather, making up alternative ones). Relative to its involvement elsewhere (even in the region) the US is not currently heavily invested in Syria. There aren't a whole lot of troops on the ground, there are no major arms sales, and there is not a whole lot of obvious strategic gains at hand. Relative to Russia's involvement in Syria, the US is currently a sideshow in every aspect. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not doesn't change facts. Same goes for your irrelevant and bizarre personal comments.

 

Hard to tell what you're on about, or if you actually have an argument other than a general US bash. Haven't said anything about the US "carrying out promises", and no idea how this applies to my posts or the OP. The link posted earlier suggests an opposite course of action to what you claim.

 

 

Like I figured, you're having a bad day. Let's just conclude here - you're right, you're always right and you will always BE right. Rock on, Morch.

[Expatthailover]

Nothing to see here.

Draft dodger don will wait to be advised and directed by big bad vlad.

Don is too busy separating children from penniless refugee parents to worry about syria