U.S. warplane downs Syrian army in southern Raqqa province

[webfact]

U.S. warplane downs Syrian army in southern Raqqa province

 

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. Marine Corps F-18 Super Hornet receives fuel from a 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron KC-10 Extender May 31, 2017, over an undisclosed location in southwest Asia. U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Preston Webb/Handout/File Photo via REUTERS

 

AMMAN/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. warplane shot down a Syrian army jet on Sunday in the southern Raqqa countryside with Washington saying the jet had dropped bombs near U.S. backed forces and Damascus saying the plane was downed while flying a mission against Islamic State militants.

 

A Syrian army statement released on Syrian state television said the plane crashed and the pilot was missing. It said the incident took place on Sunday afternoon near a village called Rasafah.

 

The "flagrant attack was an attempt to undermine the efforts of the army as the only effective force capable with its allies ... in fighting terrorism across its territory," the Syrian army said.

 

"This comes at a time when the Syrian army and its allies were making clear advances in fighting the Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group."

 

Later the U.S. Central Command issued a statement saying the Syrian plane was downed "in collective self-defence of Coalition-partnered forces," identified as fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near Tabqah.

 

It said that "pro-Syrian regime forces" had earlier attacked an SDF held town south of Tabqa and wounded a number of fighters and driving them from the town.

 

Coalition aircraft in a show of force stopped the initial advance. When a Syrian army SU-22 jet later dropped bombs near the U.S. backed forces, it was immediately shot by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet, the statement said.

 

Before it downed the plane, the coalition had "contacted the its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established "de-confliction line" to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing."

 

The coalition does "not seek to fight the Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces" but would not "hesitate to defend itself or its "partnered forces from any threat," the statement said.

 

The U.S.-led coalition, which has in recent weeks escalated its aerial bombing campaign in northern Syria and Raqqa province. U.S.-backed forces have encircled the city of Raqqa and captured several districts from the militants.

 

The Syrian army has also taken territory from retreating Islamic State militants in the western Raqqa countryside and seized back some oil fields and villages that had been under the militants' control for almost three years.

 

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi in Amman and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; editing by Andrew Roche)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-19

[hawker9000]

Quick Box Score:

F-18  -  1             SU-22  -  0

[chilli42]

Why can't the US just stay out of where it's not needed or wanted?  Is it that Syria is allied with Iran and the US just wants to keep the war and death to continue so it can destabilize Syria?  Can't be, must be that they just can't abide there are no free elections in Syria.

[billd766]

One thing that scares me is what if it should happen again but this time it was a Russian aircraft clearly marked that was shot down. Alternatively if a Russian aircraft shot a US aircraft down, what would the US do?

 

With the current POTUS in the White House I dread to think of the response.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

With the current POTUS in the White House I dread to think of the response.

Award the Russians with the Medal of Honor?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Quick Box Score:

F-18  -  1             SU-22  -  0

 

Not much of a competition there.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

One thing that scares me is what if it should happen again but this time it was a Russian aircraft clearly marked that was shot down. Alternatively if a Russian aircraft shot a US aircraft down, what would the US do?

 

With the current POTUS in the White House I dread to think of the response.

 

I think Russian aircraft avoid operating near areas where US forces are deployed. Whether this is coordinated or not, couldn't say. Their UAV's do go there, though (several clips available on net). There were several attempts at coordination, which were then declared aborted, at least publicly. And then there was the instance in which the Russians were given heads up on the US Tomahawk attack. Guess no one wants a needless conflagration.

 

A Syrian aircraft downed, there will be no overt response other than rhetoric and condemnation. A Russian aircraft downed (or a US one), would be a mess of another order.

 

With Trump, one never knows if the response would be overboard, or just plain embarrassing.

[lvr181]

4 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Why can't the US just stay out of where it's not needed or wanted?  Is it that Syria is allied with Iran and the US just wants to keep the war and death to continue so it can destabilize Syria?  Can't be, must be that they just can't abide there are no free elections in Syria.

Syria allied with Iran? Really? That simple? I doubt it very much. And without the U.S. and its allies ISIS/ISIL/Daech would still be growing in its criminal/terrorist ways. Is that what you would rather have?  Have you considered the "wars of religion" going on in this region? Perhaps tribal wars as well?

[Usernames]

Trump was not elected to get us into war in Syria.  He was elected to curtail immigration and refugees, get rid of bad trade deals, and put American workers first.  Not all this neocon crap.

[IMA_FARANG]

The Russian support of Syria, whose own government has killed more of it's own citizens than any other country ever has, is simply to establish a "friendly" country that Russia can use to expand it's own interests in the middle east.

In this stupid and meaningless civil war in Syria, there is no "honest" and "innocent" party.

Long ago this civil war has become adopted by both outside parties for their own interests, and not for the interest of the original parties that started the war.

However, it is the Syrian government that initially used indiscriminate bombing and chemical weapons attacks against it's own cities, with support from the Russian government who has their own self-serving purposes in the middle east, and wants to use Syria as the country to make them come to fruition.

 

 

[funandsuninbangkok]

Only 460 more to go

 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=syria

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Only 460 more to go

 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=syria

 

 

 

Although this is slightly off topic try this for size and comparison.

 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=thailand

 

Or this for an overall view.

 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

[landslide]

9 hours ago, Usernames said:

Trump was not elected to get us into war in Syria.  He was elected to curtail immigration and refugees, get rid of bad trade deals, and put American workers first.  Not all this neocon crap.

Trump did not get the US into war in Syria.  That is all on Obama's narrow shoulders.  The US is focused on eradicating ISIS, but will protect it's and it's allies troops in battle.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Usernames said:

Trump was not elected to get us into war in Syria.  He was elected to curtail immigration and refugees, get rid of bad trade deals, and put American workers first.  Not all this neocon crap.

 

Trump actually played the fighting-ISIS card while on the campaign trail. As I recall, there was much cheering.

[Rob13]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump actually played the fighting-ISIS card while on the campaign trail. As I recall, there was much cheering.

 

True. He also played the staying out of Syria card. Not sure how all that fits together, other than prove he really has no grasp on diplomacy or politics. And he'll probably escalate every conflict the US is in.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Rob13

[FritsSikkink]

20 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Syria allied with Iran? Really? That simple? I doubt it very much. And without the U.S. and its allies ISIS/ISIL/Daech would still be growing in its criminal/terrorist ways. Is that what you would rather have?  Have you considered the "wars of religion" going on in this region? Perhaps tribal wars as well?

the U.S. and its allies are arming ISIS/ISIL/Daech  in Syria

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

the U.S. and its allies are arming ISIS/ISIL/Daech  in Syria

 

The US is not arming ISIS.

US arms may find their way to ISIS, either by factions switching alliances or weapons being captured.

[Rob13]

14 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

the U.S. and its allies are arming ISIS/ISIL/Daech  in Syria

 

huh?

[lvr181]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

the U.S. and its allies are arming ISIS/ISIL/Daech  in Syria

What! So the U.S. and it allies can see their own people being killed? You're sick!

[Baerboxer]

On 6/19/2017 at 5:33 PM, IMA_FARANG said:

The Russian support of Syria, whose own government has killed more of it's own citizens than any other country ever has, is simply to establish a "friendly" country that Russia can use to expand it's own interests in the middle east.

In this stupid and meaningless civil war in Syria, there is no "honest" and "innocent" party.

Long ago this civil war has become adopted by both outside parties for their own interests, and not for the interest of the original parties that started the war.

However, it is the Syrian government that initially used indiscriminate bombing and chemical weapons attacks against it's own cities, with support from the Russian government who has their own self-serving purposes in the middle east, and wants to use Syria as the country to make them come to fruition.

 

 

 

Russia and Syria have been allies a long time. The former USSR supported Syria and other Arab states when the US was supporting Israel. So there is history.

 

Of course, America wouldn't be backing a rebel insurgency to oust a democratically elected government, would they? To install a regime that was more favorable to American interests in the region? 

 

I think you underestimate the CIA.

[FritsSikkink]

6 hours ago, lvr181 said:

What! So the U.S. and it allies can see their own people being killed? You're sick!

And you uninformed, they armed Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, now they arming "moderate" Islamic rebels to fight the Syrian army.

Who do you think those moderate rebels are? 

[boomerangutang]

On 6/19/2017 at 5:03 PM, Usernames said:

Trump was not elected to get us into war in Syria.  He was elected to curtail immigration and refugees, get rid of bad trade deals, and put American workers first.  Not all this neocon crap.

The main reason Trump got elected was his promises of jobs for everyone.  Of course he failed on that, as he's failed on everything else. Yet, the position of prez carries a lot of power.  He promised he wouldn't get the US deeper involved in M.East problems (though he has) and that he had a great quick secret plan for ending conflicts there (he knows more than the generals, remember?).  Trump is like Thailand's Thaksin:  If you take everything he says and turn it around 180 degrees, you get closer to the truth.

[lvr181]

5 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

And you uninformed, they armed Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, now they arming "moderate" Islamic rebels to fight the Syrian army.

Who do you think those moderate rebels are? 

I am quite aware of what happened in Afghanistan! Yes, the enemy originally was the Russians. So, arm the mujhideen to help get rid of the Russians. Then the 'mujhideen' turned on the U.S. and its allies. But Osama Bin Laden did not get all his arms from the U.S. or its allies.

 

It is not a perfect world so in trying to 'despatch' what may be termed the greater enemy, some smaller enemies fill the void. History always seems to repeat itself.

 

So, who are the moderate rebels? Definitely not ISIS/ISIL/Daech who are the current terrorist enemy. And the Shites don't seem to mind knocking of a group of Sunni extremists.

[boomerangutang]

Hey, here's what the US should do:

 

Flood the entire region with weapons, big and small, and boat loads of ammo.  The US makes bundles of money, and.......

 

Middle Easterners will do what they're so adept at doing:  shoot and blast each other to smithereens.

 

Oh wait, that's what's already happening.

[lvr181]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Hey, here's what the US should do:

 

Flood the entire region with weapons, big and small, and boat loads of ammo.  The US makes bundles of money, and.......

 

Middle Easterners will do what they're so adept at doing:  shoot and blast each other to smithereens.

 

Oh wait, that's what's already happening.

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

And you uninformed, they armed Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, now they arming "moderate" Islamic rebels to fight the Syrian army.

Who do you think those moderate rebels are? 

 

You seem to think that all of the rebel groups are ISIS, or at least that all the Islamist ones are. That's hardly the case. Fragmented does not even begin to describe the multiple groups involved and the related shifting alliances. Other than that, the factions more heavily supported by the US are predominantly Kurdish, with a lesser presence of former Syrian army outfits, and a bit of the last rabid (or not affiliated with ISIS etc) Islamist groups. Doesn't necessarily make all or any of the above that great, just that it isn't quite what you're on about.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Hey, here's what the US should do:

 

Flood the entire region with weapons, big and small, and boat loads of ammo.  The US makes bundles of money, and.......

 

Middle Easterners will do what they're so adept at doing:  shoot and blast each other to smithereens.

 

Oh wait, that's what's already happening.

 

Do you have any doubts they could source weapons elsewhere? And then without even a shred of US influence?

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Do you have any doubts they could source weapons elsewhere? And then without even a shred of US influence?

Good point.  The premise remains that M.Easterners love weapons, and can never have too many of them.  They learn about conflict from the moment they emerge from the womb. Every day of their lives, they study and dwell upon conflict, revenge, vindictiveness, destroying anyone who doesn't believe exactly as their sect believes.  Perhaps that's why Trump is so chummy with the Saudis - they think alike. 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Good point.  The premise remains that M.Easterners love weapons, and can never have too many of them.  They learn about conflict from the moment they emerge from the womb. Every day of their lives, they study and dwell upon conflict, revenge, vindictiveness, destroying anyone who doesn't believe exactly as their sect believes.  Perhaps that's why Trump is so chummy with the Saudis - they think alike. 

 

The point remains that you toss around a whole lot of bigoted generalizations. And of course, need to have a Trump comment in the mix.

[simple1]

11 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

And you uninformed, they armed Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, now they arming "moderate" Islamic rebels to fight the Syrian army.

Who do you think those moderate rebels are? 

I seriously doubt your allegation. At the time the US had very little knowledge of Bin Laden, plus his group of 'Arabs' were loathed by the warlords resisting the Russian occupation.

Edited June 21, 2017 by simple1