Thursday, May 24, 2018

US Led Coalition Attacks Syrian Army Positions in Deir Ez Zor Countryside

Surely aiding and abetting ISIS, as usual
Deir Ezzor, SANA-The US-led “international coalition” aircrafts have carried out an aggression on some of the Syrian Arab Army’s positions in the south-eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor on Thursday at dawn.
“Some of our military positions between al-Bukamal and Hmeimea were hit this morning in an aggression by “American coalition” warplanes,” a military source said.
The source added that only material damage was caused .
The new attack comes in the framework of the coalition’s explicit support to the terrorist organizations and uncovers its fake claims  about fighting terrorism.
The aggression came less than 24 hours after the Syrian army and the allied forces thwarted a terrorist attack by Daesh on a number of military points in al-Mayadeen Badiya (Desert) in the countryside of Deir Ezzor; the army killed over 10 of the attacking terrorists, among them terrorists of foreign nationalities, injured scores others and destroyed a vehicle mounted by a heavy cannon.
ABC News:
 The Syrian government-run media blamed the strikes on the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the war through a network of activists on the ground, said the fatalities were not Syrian nationals but foreign fighters. It said the coalition was likely behind the strikes.
The Pentagon said it had "no information" to substantiate reports the coalition was behind the latest airstrikes.
 ABC does not link to an original source for their out of context quote. 
Though, I will add if the Pentagon has "no information" to substantiate the claim- They have no information to discount the claim either? 
 We're left with SANA and SOHR both reporting the airstrikes occurred- both suggesting it was the coalition that was likely behind the strikes.  As the Pentagon claims to have "no information"? Where we seem to have discrepancy on the two validating reports of airstrikes is on casualty counts- SANA reports only material damage. SOHR reports a number of fatalities.

 If anyone wonders why I don't express 100 percent confidence in RT's reporting?
Or continue to question what RT is really about? The RT report linked below should help explain my non confidence in RT being the product it's alleged to be: Reports on US-led bombing of Syrian Army are incorrect – Russian military source 

The out of context quotations and alleged but unnamed Russian sourcing of information seem designed to muddy the waters.. Interesting that Pentagon reporting seems to be the actual basis of this report
"Overnight reports on US-led coalition strikes on Syrian Army positions are not “consistent with the reality,” according to a military source. (Alleged in the headline to be Russian??) Earlier, the Pentagon said it has no information on the operation. 
Early Thursday, Syrian state media reported that US-led coalition warplanes targeted Syrian Army positions in the eastern Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor. The allegations, however, appear to not be completely accurate.
The information about the alleged attack on Syrian positions by the US-led coalition “is not consistent with the reality, a military source said.
Shortly after reports on the attack emerged, a Pentagon spokesman said the US military has “no operational reporting” about any operation against the Syrian government.
Though the reports on the strike appear to be untrue this time, the US-led forces have repeatedly hit Syrian Army positions or allied forces. In one infamous case, a US-led strike killed 60 Syrian troops near the city of Deir ez-Zor in 2016. The US military later admitted it was a mistake. 
Are these recent reports of an airstrike really untrue RT? SANA has actually, in my experience with them as a media outlet, been reliable. I'll be watching this one
However, that was not the only attack on pro-government forces gaining ground against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorists in Syria. In February, US forces launched a drone strike that destroyed a tank of the pro-government forces in eastern Syria, and earlier that month, a separate attack killed around 100 pro-government fighters. The Pentagon claimed both bombings came in retaliation for alleged attacks on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – US allies in the region. 
The presence of the US contingent and its operations in Syria have not been sanctioned by either Damascus or the UN Security Council. The Syrian government has repeatedly called their presence an illegal aggression against a sovereign state"

I've often wondered if RT is the wolf in sheep's clothing?


  1. In order to continue broadcasting in the West...RT has to walk a very fine line. It MUST print reports from Western sources (ie.e., propaganda) in order to be "fair and balanced". I guess the hope is that readers will discriminate between the pro-West and the pro Russian reports.

    1. Exactly. It's quite obvious if you have the chance to compare the other language versions of RT, RT in German and RT in French are really quite different from RT in English (I'm not good enough in Spanish to include RT Spanish in the list). They are much much more conforming to the local media.
      We should also not forget that a majority of journalist on RT come from western journalism school.
      It is also very likely that RT is a priviledged target for being infiltrated by the agencies.

    2. Hi GC and Gallier2:

      I apply the same skepticism to RT as I do all others- it's just my rule of thumb way I deal with media-

      What I find interesting is that the western media is using this alleged russian denial as a means to entirely deny the US attack as if it didn't happen.
      IMO, I believe this attack did occur.

      The attack Syria reports as having taken place fits the usual pattern of US actions when Syria takes down ISIS- which they had successfully fought them (ISIS) back in that area yesterday.