US says it may have struck Syrian troops while targeting IS

[rooster59]

US says it may have struck Syrian troops while targeting IS

SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press

 

BEIRUT (AP) — The U.S. military said it may have unintentionally struck Syrian troops while carrying out a raid against the Islamic State group on Saturday, threatening an already fragile U.S. and Russian-brokered cease-fire that has largely held despite dozens of alleged violations on both sides.

 

If confirmed, it would mark the first known direct American strike on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces. The United Nations Security Council held a closed emergency meeting Saturday night at Russia's request to discuss the airstrike.

 

U.S. Central Command said the strike was immediately halted "when coalition officials were informed by Russian officials that it was possible the personnel and vehicles targeted were part of the Syrian military."

 

The Syrian military said the deadly airstrike hit a base in the eastern city of Deir el-Zour that is surrounded by IS, allowing the extremists to advance and overrun Syrian army positions in the area. Russia's military said it was told by the Syrian army that at least 62 soldiers were killed in the air raid and more than 100 wounded.

 

The apparently errant strike could deal a crushing blow to the fragile cease-fire that has largely held for five days despite dozens of alleged violations on both sides. The cease-fire, which does not apply to attacks on IS, has already been the subject of disputes between Moscow and Washington, with each accusing the other of failing to fully implement it.

 

"Coalition forces would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit," the U.S. military statement said.

 

The Syrian military said the airstrikes enabled an IS advance on a hill overlooking the air base. It called the strike a "serious and blatant attack on Syria and its military," and "firm proof of the U.S. support of Daesh," using the Arabic acronym for IS.

 

A Syrian military spokesman told a briefing early Sunday that the U.S. airstrike destroyed three tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, four mortars and an anti-aircraft gun, Russia's TASS news agency reported. The unnamed spokesman said the IS advance on the base was stopped after Russian warplanes were called in to hit IS positions.

 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said the U.S. is investigating the incident and expressed regret over the loss of life as she spoke to reporters outside the Security Council chamber while the Russian ambassador was addressing the meeting.

 

But she accused Russia of pulling "a stunt" that is "uniquely cynical and hypocritical" in calling for the emergency meeting, while never taking similar action to condemn Assad's regime "for some of the most systematic atrocities we have seen in a generation."

 

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin then walked out of the acrimonious meeting before Power spoke to the council. He said that in his decades as a diplomat he had "never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness as we are witnessing today" and was "appalled" by Power's remarks.

Churkin said the U.S. airstrike put "a very big question mark" over the future of the cease-fire agreement and its timing is "frankly suspicious" because it comes just two days before the U.S. and Russia are supposed to implement an agreement on military coordination in Syria. But he held out hope that the U.S. will find a way to convince us that it's serious about finding a political solution in Syria and fighting terrorism.

 

In Moscow, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was quoted by the state news agency TASS as saying that "after today's attack on the Syrian army, we come to the terrible conclusion that the White House is defending the Islamic State." Power said the Russian spokeswoman should be "embarrassed" for making such an insinuation.

 

The Syrian Foreign Ministry said it sent an urgent message asking the Security Council to "condemn the U.S. aggression," TASS reported, citing a statement released by Syria's SANA news. The statement claimed five U.S. aircraft took part in the airstrike.

 

A senior Obama administration official said the United States has "relayed our regret" for the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces fighting the IS.

 

The official says the notification was sent through Russia. The official also said the U.S. will continue to pursue compliance with the cessation of hostilities as it continues military action against IS and an al-Qaida-affiliated group. The official was not authorized to discuss the notification by name and requested anonymity.

 

A Russian Defense Ministry official said Syria has informed them that 62 of its soldiers were killed in the airstrike. Russia has been waging a year-old air campaign on behalf of Assad's forces and closely coordinates with them.

 

Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said the airstrike near Deir el-Zour airport, held by the government, was conducted by two F-16s and two A-10s. He did not identify the planes' country affiliation, but said they were part of the international coalition. Konashenkov said the planes came from the direction of the Iraqi border, he added.

 

He added that if the coalition attack was launched by mistake, the reason for it was a "stubborn reluctance by the American side to coordinate its action against terrorist groups in Syria with Russia."

 

IS has repeatedly attacked the government-held air base, which is an isolated enclave deep in extremist-held territory. The government controls the air base and parts of Deir el-Zour city, while IS controls the entire province by the same name. An IS advance in Deir el-Zour would endanger the lives of tens of thousands of civilians living in government-held areas. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the Syrian army later recaptured most of the positions it lost to IS.

 

The U.S.-led coalition has carried out thousands of airstrikes against IS in Syria and Iraq over the past two years, allowing allied forces on the ground to liberate several towns and cities from the extremist group. Russia also carries out attacks against IS targets, in Deir el-Zour and other parts of Syria.

 

"The coalition will review this strike and the circumstances surrounding it to see if any lessons can be learned," the U.S Central Command statement said.

 

The cease-fire took effect on Monday, and despite reports of violations, it has largely held. However, aid convoys have been unable to enter rebel-held parts of the northern city of Aleppo -- a key component of the deal.

 

Earlier on Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin questioned the U.S. commitment to cease-fire, suggesting that Washington wasn't prepared to break with "terrorist elements" battling Assad's forces.

 

Russia has accused Washington of failing to rein in the rebels, and on Saturday Putin asked why the United States has insisted on not releasing a written copy of the agreement.

 

"This comes from the problems the U.S. is facing on the Syrian track — they still cannot separate the so-called healthy part of the opposition from the half-criminal and terrorist elements," Putin said during a trip to Kyrgyzstan.

 

"In my opinion, this comes from the desire to keep the combat potential in fighting the legitimate government of Bashar Assad. But this is a very dangerous route."

 

He appeared to be referring to the Fatah al-Sham Front, an al-Qaida-linked group previously known as the Nusra Front, which is deeply embedded in rebel-held areas and fights alongside more moderate groups. Abu Mohammed al-Golani, the leader of the group, condemned the cease-fire agreement in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV aired Saturday.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed Putin's remarks during a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Lavrov noted the "refusal by an array of illegal armed groups to join the cease-fire," and Washington's obligation to "separate units of the moderate opposition from terrorist groupings," according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

 

Under the cease-fire agreement, the U.S. and Russia would work together to target the Fatah al-Sham Front, as well as IS, while Assad's forces refrain from striking opposition-held areas.

 

But Washington has warned Russia that unless aid is delivered to Aleppo, it will not move ahead with the formation of the joint coordination center.

The U.N. has accused Assad's government of obstructing aid access to the contested city. The Russian military says insurgents have held up the delivery by firing on government positions along the main route leading into besieged, rebel-held districts, in violation of the cease-fire.

 

The Syrian government said it has done all that is necessary to facilitate the entry of aid convoys to Aleppo, but that armed groups have failed to withdraw from the supply routes and are committing "dangerous, provocative acts."

 

Russia's military said Syrian rebels violated the cease-fire dozens of times over the past day, including with strikes on military and civilian targets in Aleppo. Syrian activists said government forces killed five civilians in separate attacks on Saturday.

 

Syria's conflict has killed more than 300,000 people and displaced half the country's population since March 2011.

 

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-18

 

[coma]

Obviously the US is not up to the task in Syria. Or don't want to be. Firstly they allow their local pit bull [Israel] to enter the fray only days after the ceasefire started. And now this absolutely appalling airstrike killing 62 Syrian soldiers and injuring a hundred more on their own soil, defending it from and attacking IS force that had them surrounded. Then to having Ms Power accuse the Russians of pulling "a stunt" at the UN. This sort of action makes one's blood boil. The United States of America at its best AGAIN. Destroying peoples lives and countries. When on earth will the blind see ? Time for Russia to step up its involvement in Syria. Cuz the US involvement is a farce. 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, coma said:

Obviously the US is not up to the task in Syria. Or don't want to be. Firstly they allow their local pit bull [Israel] to enter the fray only days after the ceasefire started. And now this absolutely appalling airstrike killing 62 Syrian soldiers and injuring a hundred more on their own soil, defending it from and attacking IS force that had them surrounded. Then to having Ms Power accuse the Russians of pulling "a stunt" at the UN. This sort of action makes one's blood boil. The United States of America at its best AGAIN. Destroying peoples lives and countries. When on earth will the blind see ? Time for Russia to step up its involvement in Syria. Cuz the US involvement is a farce. 

The US doesn't want to be involved.  And tried to get this mess stopped years ago.  Sadly, Russia vetoed the actions by the security council so they could support the brutal dictator Assad.  And make a lot of money off this war.

 

Very hypocritical to blame the US for this one mistake when Syria and Russia have been bombing innocent civilians for years.  Unreal.  Seems you can't see what's really going on because of your hatred of the US.  The US is far from perfect, but place blame properly.  Assad started this and Russia's backed him.  Can't blame the US for everything.

 

I'd love to see Russia criticize Syria for bombing innocent civilians.  Or even admit they've done so.  Never happen....

 

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-has-killed-more-syrian-civilians-assad-or-isis-last-month-report-426775

Quote

Russia Killed More Syrian Civilians than Assad or ISIS in January: Report

 

[Credo]

Let's see, a war zone.   Troops get hit.   Hmmmm.  

 

If it's a ceasefire, they should not be moving around.   

[thairay]

Friendly fire they call it..Waiting for the thank you from the friend..

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, thairay said:

Friendly fire they call it..Waiting for the thank you from the friend..

Where did they say it was friendly fire?   And hardly friends....

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, coma said:

 

It may serve you well to learn the facts before you post. They [Syrian troops] weren't moving around. They were on top of a hill in a defensive position [static] over looking an airfield [ key terrain], surrounded and being attacked by IS in force when US aircraft engaged them. Allowing Daesh to over run and hold said hill.

 

The Canadian's from Princess Patricia's light infantry were also static when they were engaged by US aircraft in the Tarnak Farm incident in Afghan.

Credible link stating these facts, please.  Russia and Syria are hardly credible sources of information.

 

Seems this is feeding conspiracy theories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world/middleeast/us-airstrike-syrian-troops-isis-russia.html?_r=0

 

Quote

 

Aaron David Miller, a Middle East analyst at the Wilson Center, said the episode was certain to make “an already complex situation more byzantine.”

He said the strikes would “feed conspiracy theories that Washington is in league with ISIS,” as well as create a pretext for Mr. Assad to avoid his commitments under the cease-fire deal. Mr. Miller added that the episode would create opportunities for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia “to blast the U.S. on the eve of the U.N. General Assembly,” the global meeting in New York starting this week.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by craigt3365

[smutcakes]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Credible link stating these facts, please.  Russia and Syria are hardly credible sources of information.

 

Seems this is feeding conspiracy theories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world/middleeast/us-airstrike-syrian-troops-isis-russia.html?_r=0

 

 

 

Not saying you are incorrect but the situation over there is obviously extremely complex, and very difficult to get any independent verification of what is happening.

 

I would like to understand why you think what you say is more credible than what others says when the information from there is so difficult to authenticate as true.

[derator01]

Please stick to the topic and abide by forum rules.

[KBsinter]

I saw a program on drones last year, where apon  he suggested over 70% where aborted due to fear of harming civilians, WHITEHOUSE order..............

[soalbundy]

who needs enemies when you.....

[Missing Troll]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did they say it was friendly fire?   And hardly friends....

Nowhere it say friendly fire, the Russians just like to put blame to Obama government so Trumph have more to scream about.

[dick dasterdly]

What can one say?  'Friendly fire' has been going on for years in various 'wars' in which Western nations have involved themselves.

 

Mostly, innocent civilians are killed - but quite often their 'mistakes' kill allied forces too.

[Grouse]

Clearly a cock-up; but a bit of humility wouldn't go amiss

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

Clearly a cock-up; but a bit of humility wouldn't go amiss

The US did express regret.  Have you ever heard Russia or Syria express regret for accidental bombings of civilians?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-expresses-regret-over-syria-strike-hits-russia-013428494.html

Sadly, Russia's trying to escalate this.  It's war.  Too many players in a crowded area.

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington should be more carefull, and do more to make sure that such mistakes don't happen. Washington doesn't like ISIS, and doesn't like Assad. And Washington has now said that it is against the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda'a branch in Syria), the Al-Nusra Front are rebels against Assad, and Al-Nusra Front don't like ISIS.

Now, seeing as Washington doesn't like any of the three groups that are fighting (ISIS, Assad, Al-Nusra Front), well, Washington might end up being on it's own in Syria.

How about Washington stops all military action, and just give some missiles to the Russians. Just let the Russians bomb ISIS. No need for Washington to do military strikes, no need for the risk of killing Assad's soldiers.  Assad's soldiers are very important in this war, that's because Assad is preventing ISIS taking over Syria. Surely, the last thing we want to see is ISIS being in control of Syria ? Okay, let's help Assad, give Assad weapons to fight ISIS. 

 

 

[tifino]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did they say it was friendly fire?   And hardly friends....

 

 

yeah, and aren't the Syrian troops themselves, really on the Dark Side?

 

 

If it wasn't for them - a heap of German and Swede girls would still be virgins

Edited September 19, 2016 by tifino

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington should be more carefull, and do more to make sure that such mistakes don't happen. Washington doesn't like ISIS, and doesn't like Assad. And Washington has now said that it is against the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda'a branch in Syria), the Al-Nusra Front are rebels against Assad, and Al-Nusra Front don't like ISIS.

Now, seeing as Washington doesn't like any of the three groups that are fighting (ISIS, Assad, Al-Nusra Front), well, Washington might end up being on it's own in Syria.

How about Washington stops all military action, and just give some missiles to the Russians. Just let the Russians bomb ISIS. No need for Washington to do military strikes, no need for the risk of killing Assad's soldiers.  Assad's soldiers are very important in this war, that's because Assad is preventing ISIS taking over Syria. Surely, the last thing we want to see is ISIS being in control of Syria ? Okay, let's help Assad, give Assad weapons to fight ISIS.

You are aware it's a coalition of countries?  It's not just the US.  Though yes, the US is leading it.  Even Australia is bombing in Syria.

 

And you are aware Russia it not just bombing ISIS.  They've admitted this.  How can you support the slaughtering of innocent civilians? The Syrian population would be better off if Russia left.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-has-killed-more-syrian-civilians-assad-or-isis-last-month-report-426775

Quote

Russia Killed More Syrian Civilians than Assad or ISIS in January: Report

 

[tonbridgebrit]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The US doesn't want to be involved.  And tried to get this mess stopped years ago.  Sadly, Russia vetoed the actions by the security council so they could support the brutal dictator Assad.  And make a lot of money off this war.

 

 

 

US don't want to be involved ?  Washington has backed the rebels (directly or indirectly) who are not ISIS, they've done it for years. The most effective of these Washington backed rebels are the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria). 

If Washington had NOT of backed them rebels, well, Assad and the Russians might have removed ISIS earlier on. Assad had to fight both ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

Washington has now decided to not support the Al-Nusra Front, and has decided it's present action, bomb ISIS. It would be easier to simply pull out of Syria, don't be involved at all. Should never have got involved in the first place.

 

[SgtRock]

The answer to this lies in who gave the Americans the intel to carry out the strike.

 

Wont be the 1st or the last time that the Americans / Brits / ????  have been used as an unwitting proxy to settle an old score.

[craigt3365]

Just now, tonbridgebrit said:

 

US don't want to be involved ?  Washington has backed the rebels (directly or indirectly) who are not ISIS, they've done it for years. The most effective of these Washington backed rebels are the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria). 

If Washington had NOT of backed them rebels, well, Assad and the Russians might have removed ISIS earlier on. Assad had to fight both ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

Washington has now decided to not support the Al-Nusra Front, and has decided it's present action, bomb ISIS. It would be easier to simply pull out of Syria, don't be involved at all. Should never have got involved in the first place.

 

Wow.  Your hatred for the US is clouding your judgement.  Yes, the US started out passively supporting rebels against IS.  Some eventually turned into IS.  It was a mess.  But a limited amount of support.  Then Russia got involved and vetoed every UN Security Council resolution on Syria.  If they would have passed, there would be no bombing, and far fewer civilian deaths.

 

You are aware Russia is also bombing civilians?  You seem to skip over this point.

 

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

 

The proposed resolution in 2011 was a key one.
 

Quote

 

Condemns the continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities, and expresses profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children.

 

Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Syria of arms and related materiel of all types, as well as technical training, financial resources or services, advice, or other services or assistance related to such arms and related material.

 

 

[tifino]

It all works perfectly for the Syrian junta

 

- cast out all rebels against junta,

 

by labelling them carte' blanche as ISIS,

 

and let the friendly fools do the rest

[craigt3365]

http://time.com/3719129/assad-isis-asset/

 

Quote

 

“The more powerful ISIS grows, the more they are useful for the regime"

The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has long had a pragmatic approach to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), says a Syrian businessman with close ties to the government. Even from the early days the regime purchased fuel from ISIS-controlled oil facilities, and it has maintained that relationship throughout the conflict. “Honestly speaking, the regime has always had dealings with ISIS, out of necessity.”

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-oil-isis-2016-4

Quote

 

Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime negotiated deals with the Islamic State's oil tycoon that at one point contributed up to 72% of the militant group's profit from natural resources, The Wall Street Journal reported this past weekend.

 

That is according to documents uncovered during a raid on the home of Abu Sayyaf, the Islamic State "oil minister" who was killed by US Special Forces at his compound in Syria's Deir Ezzour province in May.

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

43 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow.  Your hatred for the US is clouding your judgement.  Yes, the US started out passively supporting rebels against IS.  Some eventually turned into IS.  It was a mess.  But a limited amount of support.  Then Russia got involved and vetoed every UN Security Council resolution on Syria.  If they would have passed, there would be no bombing, and far fewer civilian deaths.

You are aware Russia is also bombing civilians?  You seem to skip over this point.

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

 

 

39 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

http://time.com/3719129/assad-isis-asset/
http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-oil-isis-2016-4

 

Craigt, I don't hate the USA, I'm trying to seriously question Washington's actions and strategy in all this.
Russia has not deliberately bombed civilians, that wikipedia link is not about Russia bombing civilians.
Yes, Assad needs oil, he buys it from ISIS, but ISIS is rebelling AGAINST Assad, Assad is needed to remove ISIS, we agree on that ?

Back to the airstrike that Washington has done. I'm only trying to say, that Washington is bombing (still bombing ? )  ISIS, and that it would be a better idea to simply not do this. Assad and the Russians are already trying to remove ISIS, they've been trying for years.  The most effective way to remove ISIS is to just step back, and let Assad and Russia remove ISIS. 

This airstrike. It just gives fuel to the conspiracy theorists. Under this theory, okay, Washington is deliberately killing Assad's soldiers. Washington regards Assad as the real enemy, it regards ISIS as a group of men who can be removed later on. Hence, Washington is secretly backing ISIS, waiting for ISIS to remove Assad. And then, later on, once Assad has gone, then, then Washington will remove ISIS.  It's a nonsense conspiracy theory, off-course.

However, we have to bear in mind that Washington spent years backing the Al-Nusra Front, it's not a secret. These men are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria, and Al-Qaeda are terrorists. The intent, surely, was to in-directly or directly back the terrorists, watch them remove Assad, and then remove the terrorists AFTER Assad has gone. That was the deal with the Al-Nusra Front. That's why we have crazy people, who now reckon that Washington has offered the same deal to ISIS. And killing 62 of Assad's soldiers, and injuring one hundred more, in an area surrounded by ISIS, well, that's part of the deal.

 

[craigt3365]

I like what you say, but Russia is bombing civilians, as is Assad.  It's well documented and it's what has created this mess.  Indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.

 

The coalition didn't deliberately bomb Syrian soldiers.  It's a war and too many players are involved.  Everybody needs to leave.  Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.  It's a proxy war, plain and simple.

[coma]

So the RAAF has fessed up to being involved in bombing Assad's troops back in September. Along with British, Danish and US aircraft. Cowboys the lot of them.

 

If you want to get involved in somebody else's business in their own country, on the other side of the planet, then at least work with with them. Not unilaterally. This business would have been done and dusted 12 months ago if the coalition butted out or at least worked with Syrian and Russian forces. As it stands now they have prolonged the inevitable. And that is a complete Assad victory.

 

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/11/30/05/02/aust-bombs-hit-wrong-targets-in-syria/?ocid=9newsfb

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, coma said:

So the RAAF has fessed up to being involved in bombing Assad's troops back in September. Along with British, Danish and US aircraft. Cowboys the lot of them.

 

If you want to get involved in somebody else's business in their own country, on the other side of the planet, then at least work with with them. Not unilaterally. This business would have been done and dusted 12 months ago if the coalition butted out or at least worked with Syrian and Russian forces. As it stands now they have prolonged the inevitable. And that is a complete Assad victory.

 

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/11/30/05/02/aust-bombs-hit-wrong-targets-in-syria/?ocid=9newsfb

At least they admitted it.  When was the last time Russia or Syria admitted to doing anything wrong!   Talk about cowboys.

 

This would have been over years ago if Russia would have stayed out.  Along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

Assad's victory?  He's just a puppet.

[Mosha]

It'd be over quicker if we inadvertently stopped arming Daesh.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[coma]

43 minutes ago, Mosha said:

It'd be over quicker if we inadvertently stopped arming Daesh.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

 

Yes. No matter where it happens. It is quite disheartening to an "allied" soldier, when during the conduct of a battlefield clearance, he has to pry a M16 or variant, complete with M 203 from his dead enemy's hands.

There is also the issue of all the US armoured vehicles, mortars and 155 mm pieces they got hold of when the Iraqi army dropped it pants and ran for their lives.

[johna]

Its quite clear that the US deliberately bombed Syrian forces, and that the so called investigating officer Brig Gen R Coe  is lying through his teeth. It took another 27 minutes for the US to halt the air strikes after they were informed by the Russians they were bombing Syrian forces, Coe only admits to killing 15 Syrian army personnel, though he acknowledges the US has no access to the bombed site. 

Here is a link to The Guardian story which is much better informed than Associated Press and not embedded with the Pentagon

 

The US military has formally admitted fault in a major September airstrike in eastern Syria