The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Noah]

Not much love for Assad in Kurdish controlled Qamishlo

https://twitter.com/GissiSim/status/723219212425109504

There's a reason they have had near constant conflict for decades.

 

[Dave]

Pretty big news, Assad cant afford to take on the Kurds as well.


50 killed, wounded in YPG-Syrian army clashes in Rojava's Qamishli




http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/210420161

Assad/the Syrian Army are being stupid to get into conflict with the Kurds who will leave them alone if they stay out of Kurdish areas.

 

[Unhappy438]

[video=youtube;aftoBdrjm7Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aftoBdrjm7Q[/video]

 

[snoopdoggydog]

No boots on ground in Syria, but US troops wearing boots & on ground are there ‒ State Dept

Despite repeated promises to the contrary, US troops are in Syria, and the Pentagon has sent 250 more. But the State Department says those American soldiers wearing boots in Syria aren’t actually “boots on the ground.”

President Barack Obama confirmed plans to dramatically increase the American troop presence in Syria by deploying an additional 250 personnel, bringing the total to 300. He said the troops would help drive out Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

In 2013, Obama promised not to put any “American boots on the ground in Syria.”

The president repeated that claim in a September 2014 interview on ‘Meet the Press’.

“The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that," Obama said on September 7, 2014.

Three days later, he reiterated that point in an address to the American people, promising that US troops would not fight in Syria.

On Monday, however, State Department spokesman John Kirby admitted that the US has boots on the ground in Syria… but that they are not there as boots on the ground.

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee pressed Kirby on the issue.

“For months and months and months, the mantra from the president and everyone else in the administration has been the no boots on the ground, and how…” Lee said.

“That is not true,” Kirby replied, cutting him off.

“What?” Lee exclaimed.

“It’s just not true, Matt. It’s just not true,” Kirby said. “I just flatly, absolutely disagree with you,” the spokesman said while pounding his fist on the podium.

https://www.rt.com/usa/340903-state-boots-ground-syria/

Why doesn't the USA just say 'we are America we do and say what we want Russia better not do the same or we will complain'

 

[Unhappy438]

Why does RT feel the need to relabel military terminology, boots on the ground refers to ground troops. Putin vowed not to send Russian troops to Syria yet there are special forces there, does this break that promise too?

 

[Dave]

https://www.rt.com/usa/340903-state-boots-ground-syria/

Why doesn't the USA just say 'we are America we do and say what we want Russia better not do the same or we will complain'

RT really are a bunch of clowns, taking the literal meaning of words and somehow spinning it into another anti-US story.

 

[Alan]

Special forces don't wear boots. Or they do but they never actually touch the ground.....

I can't remember which.

 

[Unhappy438]

Special forces don't wear boots. Or they do but they never actually touch the ground.....

I can't remember which.

Boots on the ground is a common terminology for ground forces, military advisers and special forces are not ground forces no.

 

[Dave]

State Department answer to the Russian Troll network idiocy.

(CNSNews.com) – The administration’s decision to deploy another 250 troops to Syria – where 50 special forces operators have been stationed since late last year – does not constitute “boots on the ground” in the accepted colloquial sense of a conventional ground combat mission, State Department spokesman John Kirby said Monday.

“They are wearing boots and they are on the ground,” Kirby acknowledged during a lengthy exchange with reporters at his daily press briefing. “But that doesn’t mean that they are in large-scale ground combat operations.”

He said the same thing applied to the more than 3,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq over the past two years.

“You guys are getting way wrapped around the axle on the phrase, ‘boots on the ground.’ Yes, there’s boots on the ground. We’ve got pilots that have been flying airstrikes since August of 2014. Don’t tell me and don’t tell them or their families that they’re not involved in actual combat over Iraq and Syria.

“But that’s a big difference between that and saying we’re going to involve ourselves in conventional ground troops and ground force operations on the ground, which we have not done and there are no plans to do it,” he said

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...man-phrase-boots-ground-has-reporters-wrapped

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Boots on the ground is a common terminology for ground forces, military advisers and special forces are not ground forces no.

That may be so, but Obama has in the past been very clear about having no ground forces at all in Syria, so there was still a lie although that lie is quite old by now.

Regardless, everyone is so keen on peace yet they keep escalating the situation (and I do mean everyone) ...

 

[Grant]

RT really are a bunch of clowns, taking the literal meaning of words and somehow spinning it into another anti-US story.

they are just following commands from dear leader putin and bosses in the kremlin

/waits for sputnik's spin on this

 

[Unhappy438]

That may be so, but Obama has in the past been very clear about having no ground forces at all in Syria, so there was still a lie although that lie is quite old by now.

Regardless, everyone is so keen on peace yet they keep escalating the situation (and I do mean everyone) ...

1) When did Obama say no special forces or military advisers in Syria? He has repeatedly said he wont have boots on the ground like they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesnt seem to have done that.

2) Even if he did say he was never going to send military advisers to Syria, how does him changing his mind mean hes lying? You seem to be confusing the two.

 

[Noah]

how does him changing his mind mean hes lying?

good ****post

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

1) When did Obama say no special forces or military advisers in Syria? He has repeatedly said he wont have boots on the ground like they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesnt seem to have done that.

2) Even if he did say he was never going to send military advisers to Syria, how does him changing his mind mean hes lying? You seem to be confusing the two.

1) He specifically said none at all, making this BS excuse of what "boots on the ground" means the equivalent of Zuma's apology for the "frustration caused" i.e. an outright lie and an insult to anyone with a triple digit IQ:
Source: 16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria

There would be no American boots on the ground
It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil

Read the rest to get a clear picture of just what a blatant and outright lie it is to claim there was no change in strategy. First it was no boots on the ground whatsoever, then it became no combat troops, then it became "oh ok sure special forces are combat troops, but these guys are not engaged in a combat role".

Yet they are engaged, taking fire etc, ignore anything RT themselves say, focus only on what others say here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W55jEdgLzyQ

2) Changing your mind does not make you a liar, telling the world they misunderstood and you never changed your mind makes you a liar. Right up there with mispronouncing a large number and telling the crowd they should "listen properly". This is banana republic BS that nobody expects from the US, their critics and fans alike will expect, and should expect, better from them.

 

[Grant]

Air strikes on Aleppo hospital kill doctors and children

An airstrike on a pediatric hospital in Syria has killed 50 people, rights and humanitarian groups say, as the United Nations warns that the situation in Aleppo has become "catastrophic" amid intensified fighting in recent days.

Al Quds field hospital, situated in a rebel-held neighborhood in Aleppo, was hit by a missile from a fighter jet Wednesday, witnesses said.
The airstrike killed at least 50 people, according to Pablo Marco, operations manager for Doctors Without Borders in the Middle East.
Marco told CNN that at least six of the dead were hospital staff: Two doctors, two nurses, one guard and one maintenance worker. The death toll could still rise.

Syria's state-run SANA news agency ran a statement denying that government planes were responsible for the assault, and Russia's Defense Ministry issued a statement saying it had not carried out the strike. Syrian government forces, backed by Russian air power, have been pursuing a major offensive on Aleppo in recent months.
A U.S. military official told CNN that U.S. forces were not operating in the area of the hospital, and their closest strike had been 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) to the north.

Marco, with Doctors Without Borders, told CNN that two barrel bombs hit buildings near the hospital. The injured were rushed to the hospital and relatives hurried there. A third barrel bomb landed at the facility's gate, causing many of the casualties, he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/middleeast/syria-aleppo-hospital-airstrike/index.html


[video=youtube;EWxq9kYLqTA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWxq9kYLqTA[/video]

 

[Grant]

MSF: Airstrike on Aleppo hospital was deliberate

[video=youtube;XI5KMAvfYDU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5KMAvfYDU[/video].

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

So three different parties deny having anything to do with this, witnesses say it was a missile and the MSF guy says it was barrel bombs and admits they cannot be sure who is responsible?

A whole lot of allegation and finger pointing going on with precious little fact. I guess the real headline is less interesting then? "Hospital hit in Aleppo, nobody knows by whom or what, people died"

 

[Noah]

Was it an MSF hospital?

 

[Grant]

So three different parties deny having anything to do with this, witnesses say it was a missile and the MSF guy says it was barrel bombs and admits they cannot be sure who is responsible?
A whole lot of allegation and finger pointing going on with precious little fact.

that is exactly why msf are calling for an independent investigation

I guess the real headline is less interesting then? "Hospital hit in Aleppo, nobody knows by whom or what, people died"

no, the real headline remains:
Air strikes on Aleppo hospital kill doctors and children

 

[Grant]

Was it an MSF hospital?

no, not a msf hospital, mainly staffed and supplied by them
apparently a very well known hospital that has been there "for years"