US says it may have struck Syrian troops while targeting IS

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, johna said:

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

 

Quite clear?  Please show verbiage that indicates they deliberately bombed Syrian forces, knowing full well they were Syrian.  All I read was it was a mistake.  Seems the Russians were to blame also.  From the linked article which is not embedded with the Pentagon LOL:

 

Quote

In that conversation, the Russians informed their US counterparts that the targets of the strike were probably “part of the Syrian military”.

 

The conversation turned out to be crucial. A US military officer misidentified the coordinates of the targeted area, and presumed from the lack of Russian objection that there was no problem with the intended strike.

 

But Centcom said on Tuesday that the Russians made a “critical delay” before informing the US of the mistake, waiting 27 minutes for a “familiar US counterpart” to be reached.

 

 

Again, has Russia or Syria ever admitted they made a mistake? 

 

Best to get your facts straight....

[coma]

31 minutes ago, johna said:

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

 

Very encouraging article. Can hardly wait for 20 Jan.

[tonbridgebrit]

11 hours ago, coma said:

 

Very encouraging article. Can hardly wait for 20 Jan.

"Can hardly wait for 20 Jan."

I feel the same way. Trump might have some strange policies regarding America, but on foreign policy, Trump makes far more sense that Obama and Clinton.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

Above is a link from the New York Times. Trump is going to end aid for the rebels fighting AGAINST Assad.
A quote from the New York Times [ Mr. Trump’s the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend logic is consistent with what he said during the campaign. “I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ‘cause he’s not,” he told The New York Times in an interview in March, “but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS.” ]

I'm sure Trump is not going to change his mind. He said stuff about how bad the TPP is, and he's already announced that the TPP has been put into the dustbin. Trump will surely end all aid to rebels in Syria, and help Assad remove ISIS.
Trump said "but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS".  Mr Trump, Sir, you've said something that most Americans and British people totally agree with. But some people have got belief that Assad and Russia are more dangerous than ISIS.  And no, we don't think it's a good idea to watch ISIS (or whatever rebel groups) remove Assad, and then we have to bomb ISIS or whatever groups.
 
 

[tonbridgebrit]

14 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

Man, even if it is the case that Assad is a puppet controlled by Russia and/or Iran, well, surely, it's better to have Assad in control of Syria ?

A Syria that will no longer have ISIS, and the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria)  , is what we (the people of America, Britain, and Europe) want, surely ???

 

[coma]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Can hardly wait for 20 Jan."

I feel the same way. Trump might have some strange policies regarding America, but on foreign policy, Trump makes far more sense that Obama and Clinton.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

Above is a link from the New York Times. Trump is going to end aid for the rebels fighting AGAINST Assad.
A quote from the New York Times [ Mr. Trump’s the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend logic is consistent with what he said during the campaign. “I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ‘cause he’s not,” he told The New York Times in an interview in March, “but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS.” ]

I'm sure Trump is not going to change his mind. He said stuff about how bad the TPP is, and he's already announced that the TPP has been put into the dustbin. Trump will surely end all aid to rebels in Syria, and help Assad remove ISIS.
Trump said "but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS".  Mr Trump, Sir, you've said something that most Americans and British people totally agree with. But some people have got belief that Assad and Russia are more dangerous than ISIS.  And no, we don't think it's a good idea to watch ISIS (or whatever rebel groups) remove Assad, and then we have to bomb ISIS or whatever groups.
 
 

 

Good one again.  For me I am at a loss as to why the West wants to treat Russia as an enemy all the time. And it seems Mr Trump is a baffled also. Who cares if Putin is ripping his own people off for billions of dollar ? Nothing to do with us.The Russian love him so why should we care. If the West and Russia play from the same sheet of music as each other then the world would be a much safer place.

[gemini81]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 0:17 AM, 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.

 

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

 

Bull- funding/supporting, supplying ISIS, Al NUSRA, leaked cables, proxy armies, intent to topple Assad. "moderate" rebels- who are violent mercenaries, and I am sure you know it. All on top of creation of Taliban, mujahedeen, Al Queda. Gets you mad when you think your taxes/gov't supported, paid for all that. Not sure how you stand to benefit from justification of US meddling. I find it more patriotic to take a stand against all the middle east oil wars/meddling.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by gemini81
addition

[tonbridgebrit]

39 minutes ago, gemini81 said:

Bull- funding/supporting, supplying ISIS, Al NUSRA, leaked cables, proxy armies, intent to topple Assad. "moderate" rebels- who are violent mercenaries, and I am sure you know it. All on top of creation of Taliban, mujahedeen, Al Queda. Gets you mad when you think your taxes/gov't supported, paid for all that. Not sure how you stand to benefit from justification of US meddling. I find it more patriotic to take a stand against all the middle east oil wars/meddling.

 

Yes, I previously thought that it was absurd to claim that Washington indirectly supported ISIS. After all, ISIS are really bad guys, according to the media.


Okay, here's a link from the Independent, a mainstream newspaper in Britain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

The shock news (well, it shocked me, anyway) is, is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS, and that Washington has known about it for some time. Yes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are US allies.

Hillary and Obama knew about it.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by tonbridgebrit

[gemini81]

30 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, I previously thought that it was absurd to claim that Washington indirectly supported ISIS. After all, ISIS are really bad guys, according to the media.


Okay, here's a link from the Independent, a mainstream newspaper in Britain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

The shock news (well, it shocked me, anyway) is, is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS, and that Washington has known about it for some time. Yes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are US allies.

Hillary and Obama knew about it.

 

Makes you wonder if option A, the proxy army against Assad is failing so bad, that it would be boots on ground- dangerous territory w/Russia. Wish Ron Paul had been in office to end all this madness!

Deep state is fully behind it, and the US helps coordinate it indirectly. Look into the rat line, the arms supply/sales, CIA involvement. All comes back to the power vacuum left behind by our involvement in Lybia, Iraq. Had the boys stayed home and not been shipped to ME, not destabilized these countries for oil/puppet gov'ts/petrol dollars, we would not have ISIS. Those who didn't want to trade in petrol dollars? Iran, Lybia, Iraq, Syria...funny coincidence. If only some posters researched beyond just reading Washington press news, and look into history too...

Edited November 30, 2016 by gemini81

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Man, even if it is the case that Assad is a puppet controlled by Russia and/or Iran, well, surely, it's better to have Assad in control of Syria ?

A Syria that will no longer have ISIS, and the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria)  , is what we (the people of America, Britain, and Europe) want, surely ???

 

 

You are aware of Assad and his father's atrocities against their people over the years?  Surely you are.  This mess started because of this.  The people revolted.  So no, it's probably not better to have Assad in control of Syria.  Unfortunately, no viable options exist.  It's a mess.

 

I think anybody that thinks ISIS will be gone forever is fooling themselves.  They'll be around just like the Muslim Brotherhood has for a long time.  A reset is needed in the Middle East.  Not an easy task.  But yes, it's what everybody wants.  A peaceful Syria that isn't a breeding ground for IS, and a population that isn't brutalized.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, coma said:

 

Good one again.  For me I am at a loss as to why the West wants to treat Russia as an enemy all the time. And it seems Mr Trump is a baffled also. Who cares if Putin is ripping his own people off for billions of dollar ? Nothing to do with us.The Russian love him so why should we care. If the West and Russia play from the same sheet of music as each other then the world would be a much safer place.

I think many are also at a loss as to why Russia wants to treat the West as an enemy all the time.  Just watch RT for a few minutes.  Crazy.

 

As for Putin ripping off his people for billions of dollars, that might eventually catch up with him.  And potentially cause a huge global problem.  His popularity at home is OK, but not all love him.  As shown by the many who've been assassinated over the years.

 

You can't blame all the worlds problems on the West.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Bull- funding/supporting, supplying ISIS, Al NUSRA, leaked cables, proxy armies, intent to topple Assad. "moderate" rebels- who are violent mercenaries, and I am sure you know it. All on top of creation of Taliban, mujahedeen, Al Queda. Gets you mad when you think your taxes/gov't supported, paid for all that. Not sure how you stand to benefit from justification of US meddling. I find it more patriotic to take a stand against all the middle east oil wars/meddling.

 

So you are saying the US wanted to have a war in Syria?  Sorry, but that's not true.  Did they initially fund rebels?  That's widely known.  Did it turn out poorly?  That's widely known.  Yes!

 

If you want to take a stand against all middle east meddling, focus some of your resentment towards the two key players.  Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Not all the world's problems can be blamed on the US.

 

Interesting read:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/l-todd-wood-russia-begins-supplying-weapons-afghan/

Quote

Russia begins supplying weapons to Afghanistan, sides with Taliban

 

Russia also stated it no longer sees the Taliban as they enemy and may even partner with them in the fight against the Islamic State.

 

Yes, it'd be great if everybody worked together.  Kum ba ya.

[simple1]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I think many are also at a loss as to why Russia wants to treat the West as an enemy all the time.  Just watch RT for a few minutes.  Crazy.

 

As for Putin ripping off his people for billions of dollars, that might eventually catch up with him.  And potentially cause a huge global problem.  His popularity at home is OK, but not all love him.  As shown by the many who've been assassinated over the years.

 

You can't blame all the worlds problems on the West.

 

Whilst the Assad regime dictatorship, together with the massive corruption  representing a relatively small portion of the total population, stays in power very much doubt any reset will occur.

 

Today it has been reported regime forces are murdering evacuees from Aleppo. As Scott and I believe Morch have commented, for the moment, no hope of ending the bloodshed and return of refugees to a devastated country with an extremely brutal dictatorship in power.

Edited December 1, 2016 by simple1

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Whilst the Assad regime dictatorship, together with the massive corruption  representing a relatively small portion of the total population, stays in power very much doubt any reset will occur.

 

Today it has been reported regime forces are murdering evacuees from Aleppo. As Scott and I believe Morch have commented, for the moment, no hope of ending the bloodshed and return of refugees to a devastated country with an extremely brutal dictatorship in power.

Yes, there's an article on the massacre here.  Being done mainly by the Russians and Syrians. Who of course, say they are only bombing civilians.  Incredible some actually believe that! LOL

[Morch]

20 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Can hardly wait for 20 Jan."

I feel the same way. Trump might have some strange policies regarding America, but on foreign policy, Trump makes far more sense that Obama and Clinton.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

Above is a link from the New York Times. Trump is going to end aid for the rebels fighting AGAINST Assad.
A quote from the New York Times [ Mr. Trump’s the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend logic is consistent with what he said during the campaign. “I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ‘cause he’s not,” he told The New York Times in an interview in March, “but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS.” ]

I'm sure Trump is not going to change his mind. He said stuff about how bad the TPP is, and he's already announced that the TPP has been put into the dustbin. Trump will surely end all aid to rebels in Syria, and help Assad remove ISIS.
Trump said "but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS".  Mr Trump, Sir, you've said something that most Americans and British people totally agree with. But some people have got belief that Assad and Russia are more dangerous than ISIS.  And no, we don't think it's a good idea to watch ISIS (or whatever rebel groups) remove Assad, and then we have to bomb ISIS or whatever groups.
 
 

 

That you are "sure" Trump is not going to change his mind means less than nothing. If there's anything that can be reliably said on the president-elect is that his statements should be considered as tentative. Same goes for your assessment of Trump's TPP statements - "he said stuff", "he's already announced" - that means squat until it actually happens. That you consider it a fact doesn't make it so.

 

Seems like some posters insist on seeing things as a zero sum game. Things in the ME usually aren't, though. Getting rid of ISIS does not exclude getting rid of Assad, and vice versa. Given that ISIS is pretty much on the run, and conceivably will be less of territorial entity in a few months,  Assad's presence may not be required thereafter.

 

With regard to possible future US actions, can't see  the elections results as being much of a difference. The Russians (and by extension Assad's regime) are firmly in place, and currently there simply isn't enough leverage that can be brought to bear. As it is unlikely that the Obama administration would take up any action in the reminder of its term, the Russians and Assad's regime got seven more weeks to conduct military operations. Probably even longer, because even if this would be the first item on Trump's agenda, it will take additional time to reach an understanding. The short version - by the time the US will deal with it, opposition to Assad's regime (ISIS or otherwise) will be less of an issue (even if not completely gone). This will place the US in a position which will require a compromise. So IMO, overall, not so much about Trump, more about Russia playing this one better, and timing issues.

 

[Morch]

20 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Man, even if it is the case that Assad is a puppet controlled by Russia and/or Iran, well, surely, it's better to have Assad in control of Syria ?

A Syria that will no longer have ISIS, and the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria)  , is what we (the people of America, Britain, and Europe) want, surely ???

 

 

How do you mean "if"? Doubt there's anyone questioning Assad being under Russia's thumb, with the same applying (if to a lesser degree) to Iran's influence. Had both these countries not come to his aid, Assad's regime might not have been an issue by now.

 

No, it is not "better" to have Assad in control of Syria. It is only "better" if one pits it against ISIS being in control. But that is not necessarily an honest proposition. Assad's rule is not an essential component of Syria's future. 

[Morch]

20 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, I previously thought that it was absurd to claim that Washington indirectly supported ISIS. After all, ISIS are really bad guys, according to the media.


Okay, here's a link from the Independent, a mainstream newspaper in Britain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

The shock news (well, it shocked me, anyway) is, is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS, and that Washington has known about it for some time. Yes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are US allies.

Hillary and Obama knew about it.

 

 

Do explain how this amounts to the US even indirectly supporting ISIS? The alleged support for ISIS was by ME countries, and there's nothing therein indicating that the US  condoned, assisted or facilitated their alleged support.

 

Even if the Obama administration was aware of it, that pretty much falls under the constraints of realpolitik. So please, put away your faux "shock" and indignation. That's how the game is played by all nations. Unless you're gonna tell us Russia's there for higher ideals.

[craigt3365]

On 11/30/2016 at 9:23 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

"Can hardly wait for 20 Jan."

I feel the same way. Trump might have some strange policies regarding America, but on foreign policy, Trump makes far more sense that Obama and Clinton.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

Above is a link from the New York Times. Trump is going to end aid for the rebels fighting AGAINST Assad.
A quote from the New York Times [ Mr. Trump’s the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend logic is consistent with what he said during the campaign. “I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ‘cause he’s not,” he told The New York Times in an interview in March, “but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS.” ]

I'm sure Trump is not going to change his mind. He said stuff about how bad the TPP is, and he's already announced that the TPP has been put into the dustbin. Trump will surely end all aid to rebels in Syria, and help Assad remove ISIS.
Trump said "but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS".  Mr Trump, Sir, you've said something that most Americans and British people totally agree with. But some people have got belief that Assad and Russia are more dangerous than ISIS.  And no, we don't think it's a good idea to watch ISIS (or whatever rebel groups) remove Assad, and then we have to bomb ISIS or whatever groups.
 
 

Check out Trump's choice for Defense. LOL

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/james-mattis-trump-secretary-of-defense/index.html