world

Syrian troops break siege imposed by IS on base since 2013

27 Comments
By ALBERT AJI and BASSEM MROUE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

Finally, now let's see if they move on to the center of Syria, most likely starting at Palmyra, for obvious reasons.

IS has been besieging the base since 2013 when they defeated rival militant groups who had surrounded the base for a year.

Many of the rebel groups hit by the Russian strikes are also at war with the IS group.

This is a danger when other rebel groups are weakened or displaced with a vacuum - ISIS may defeat them and take over.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It seems Russian action is finally moving this conflict toward eventual resolution. Despite Mr. Putin's flaws he is promoting global stability while Mr. Obama has contributed mightily to instability in the Middle East and North Africa.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Several hundred soldiers held out for two years, completely surrounded and only occasionally supplied by air. Vivid illustration to falsity of "regime is crumbling", "Assad has no real support" propaganda.

Salute to the heroic soldiers of Kweiras air base .

4 ( +4 / -0 )

marcelito, why should Western planes be flying within the sovereign air space of Syria? Their main mandate is Iraq. Plus occasional close support for the Kurds in north-eastern Syria where there is no government outside of IS.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

why should Western planes be flying within the sovereign air space of Syria?

Principled.

Plus occasional close support for the Kurds in north-eastern Syria

Principled contradiction.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And great news for nationalistic Russians and remunerated Pbot's desperate for progress in their already fizzled-out campaign!

Didn't you say it would be all over by now?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You guys are making it sound as if there is confusion in the checkerboard called Syria and someone should be sorting it out.

I agree, the choices in Syria are muddied. Sadly I do not think there is anyone capable of sorting out this man-made mess, not once the grim inevitability of vicious war has set in. Only time and weariness can get people to lay down their arms, but that would take years, especially with religious zealots involved. IS are best placed at the moment to sort things out through extreme ruthlessness, but that insight has frightened all players involved.

On a personal level I have always felt that the West should stay out of Syria. Early on it was apparent that it would be no easy Arab Spring, and there were dangerous elements at work. Assad always seemed a step above people like Qaddafi of Libya, and even now he may still be the best bet to hold a much-reduced country together. I think the West is wrong to insist on him stepping down as a prerequisite to anything else. (But I also understand the extreme bitterness of all those who lost loved ones over the years under the unbridled rule of his secret police.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" Syrian rebels have said the strikes have hit mainstream rebels "

"mainstream rebels"? What the heck is that? Something different from Obamas/McCains "vetted rebels" who turn into Al Nusra/ISIS at the drop of a pin?

How much longer will the media feed us this nonsens?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Madverts

And great news for nationalistic Russians and remunerated Pbot

And great news for all normal and sane people who want IS, Nusra, whatever the name, destroyed. To tell you a secret, not everyone who supports Russia's action is a Russian. A lot of Japanese support it.

their already fizzled-out campaign

War, real war, is a very difficult job. Russians work hard in Syria, about 50-60 combat sorties every day, and they do not need publicity stunts. Americans and British need it, because they do nothing to inflict real damage to IS. Or may be you'll tell us about great success of USAF / RAF in their REALLY fizzled-out campaign?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Asakaze:

" Americans and British need it, because they do nothing to inflict real damage to IS " Understatement of the day. What about Obamas weapons deliveries to the "vetted rebels" aka Al Nusra? What about the ongoing sanctions against the Syrian government, which is de facto support for ISIS? What about the "humanitarian support" flowing into ISIS country and being taxed by ISIS, funded by the West?? What about the silence about Turkey buying Syrian oil stolen by ISIS? This and more amounts to American and British support for ISIS. It is truly infuriating.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Asakaze my friend,

I actually like you, please don't take my holding the feet to the flames of your strange compatriot for yourself. I have Russian friends and I have every desire for Russia to succeed in her mission destroying Daesh - I just think it's Mission Impossible in reality. Cloud cuckoo land in fact.

The only way ISIL can be defeated is boots on the ground from all of us. NATO, Russia and the US combined. A coordinated effort which will involve huge causalities, somewhat similar in size (if we're honest) to WWII.

Until then, all we're doing - all of us - is pissing in the wind.

Cheers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Madverts

Very unusual tone of your posting. All right, I also can be nice.

And I can agree with your view that the fight against IS is "mission impossible", but not for reasons you mentioned. Deaesh is not Nazi Germany, it does not require huge tank armies to deal with, there will be no epic battles of Stalingrad proportions and, accordingly, no huge combat casualties. Anti-Daesh forces have complete air superiority, much more weaponry, enough infantry - rather battered, but anyway still fighting Syrian Army. Iraqi Army is of questionable quality, but al least it numerous. Victory against Daesh is, as Churchill described the strategy against Germany, just a question of proper use of overwhelming force.

And here is the problem, there is no proper use. There is no political will on the part of the West to deafeat Daesh. @WilliB put it very aptly. The small Russian air group in Syria just in a month did more then all the Western forces did in a year. And very interesting reaction to that in Washington and London - barely camouflaged anger. Why? Because US / UK do not want Daesh defeated. And Washington is really angry because Putin broke the US monopoly on providing military security.

@WilliB

Kudos for your posting, fully agreed. I just used diplomatic language lol

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Madverts:

" The only way ISIL can be defeated is boots on the ground from all of us. NATO, Russia and the US combined. A coordinated effort which will involve huge causalities, somewhat similar in size (if we're honest) to WWII. "

.....and then, what? Occupy Syria and try nation-building, the way it worked so gloriously for the West in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously??

In the event, you idea that this is like "WWII" is romantic, but wrong. You do not need a foreign occupation, you need a local regime to deal with the jihadis, as indeed Saddam Hussein in Gaddafi did, if we just let them!. Instead of endlessly intervening on behalf of the Jihadis and their Saudi backers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Asakaze, Willi,

I refer to WW2 as in a massive ground campaign where lots and lots of our soldiers die rooting out every last single MadBeard. I agree neither Russia nor the West have the political will for such action so it does make me wonder why the hell we're getting involved in a half-assed manner.

The position that the west somehow aren't really wanting to defeat Daesh is still Tinfoil Hat territory to me!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The position that the west somehow aren't really wanting to defeat Daesh is still Tinfoil Hat territory to me!

Have the West done anything to stop Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar from openly supporting Daesh? Why there were reports from the Iraqi Army that they saw US and British aircraft dropping supplies to Daesh forces? Look at the facts and think.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ok i'll indulge you, show me your source for that claim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

[quote]The position that the west somehow aren't really wanting to defeat Daesh is still Tinfoil Hat territory to me![/quote]

Tinfoil hat?? I am simply calling something that walks, quacks, and eats worms like a duck... a duck. I have no idea what is going on in the brains of Obama, MCain, Cameron, and the other clowns. I can say with certainty that their policies add up to support for ISIS. If the reason for that is some grand conspiracy in smoke-filled dark back rooms or simple political convenience and ignorance, I do not know. Saying that their actions in Syria reflect the interests of Saudi Arabia, again, is a simple fact. No idea where you see the tinfoil there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" The position that the west somehow aren't really wanting to defeat Daesh is still Tinfoil Hat territory to me! "

Tinfoil hat?? I am simply looking at actions. I have no idea what Obama, MCain, Cameron, and our other brilliant politians are thinking. I can say with certainty that their policies add up to support for ISIS. If the reason for that is some grand conspiracy in smoke-filled dark back rooms or simple political convenience and ignorance, I do not know. Saying that their actions in Syria reflect the interests of Saudi Arabia, again, is a simple fact. No idea where you see the tinfoil hat.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Madverts and Willi B, please stop bickering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts, i read the news about air drops half a year ago, can not remember the source now. If I find it, I'll tell you.

Meanwhile, read this:

http://www.awdnews.com/top-news/turkish-intelligence-chief-putin-s-intervention-in-syria-is-against-islam-and-international-law,-isis-is-a-reality-and-we-are-optimistic-about-the-future

Have a good thought!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm perplexed that someone like yourself who clearly has a brain would base such a wild accusation on one article you claim to have read but cannot cite. Even if I'm to share the aluminium for a moment and breathe deeply in your heady conspiracy I'm at a loss as to what you think the West would have to gain by only pretending to act against Daesh.

Willi on the other hand hates Muslims and spends most of his time on these boards talking negatively about them - yet even he can't offer a shred of evidence to support your shared stance. That kinda says it all for me.

I read your article - a news source I've never heard of btw. I'm not sure what you want me to take from that? It seems to me all parties are working towards their own goals in this conflict (more the Turks perhaps than anyone) and the poor Syrians are trapped in the middle of a geopolitical power struggle which I guess makes every party guilty for the suffering. If we're being honest.

The blow-back will hit Turkey the most anyway. They really are playing a dangerous game only they share a border with the country they're actively playing a role in destroying. On a serious note Asakaze I'm tiring of the arguments about these miserable conflicts, when you see the images of what is left in some Syrian cities they're starting to look like Hiroshima. The human suffering is atrocious. Worse than Iraq. And that is saying something....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Madverts

First, complete lack of facts, lack of any proof did not prevent you from claiming very agressively that Putin killed Nemtsov, right? Remember our discussion of the subject?

Second. Do you catalogue every piece of news you read every day? Neither do I. Agreed, the news about the air drops was very important and now I wish I made a note. I'll do it next time.

And the last. You can't take anything useful from the news I sent you? Very strange. OK, I'll translate the meaning for you: a decision-making representative of Turkish government (and Turkey is a major NATO member) says that Daesh is not a terrorist organisation, but in fact they are good guys, they represent a wonderful thing called moslem revolution, and Turkey supports they noble fight. Got it? And what about US, did they do anything about this statement? Nothing. Did the US try to strangle Daesh economically by some sort of naval blockade to stop export of oil from Daesh-controlled oilfields through Turkish ports? Ha!!

I'm at a loss as to what you think the West would have to gain by only pretending to act against Daesh

There are several reasons. The most simple and obvious is that Daesh's main sponsors are Saudi Arabia and Qatar (I hope you won't demand proof for that). Both are key US allies. You won't break your friend's favourite toys, right? And Saudi Arabia agreed to sell oil only for US dollars, providing world dominance for US currency. If you think that the US would undermine the cornestone of its economy for such abstract thing as suffering of many thousands of people, you're too naive. "Nothing personal, just business".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Azakaze:

" decision-making representative of Turkish government (and Turkey is a major NATO member) says that Daesh is not a terrorist organisation, but in fact they are good guys, they represent a wonderful thing called moslem revolution, and Turkey supports they noble fight. Got it? And what about US, did they do anything about this statement? Nothing. Did the US try to strangle Daesh economically by some sort of naval blockade to stop export of oil from Daesh-controlled oilfields through Turkish ports? Ha!! "

In addition that, they STILL send "humanitarian aid" to ISIS (thus freeing ISIS ressources for terrorism), and top of that PAY ISIS tax for being allowed to send the ressources to ISIS. Even Madverts can google that. If that is not indirect support for ISIS, what is?

And of course, most fundamentally, the ongoing sanctions against the ONLY player who could take out ISIS, namely Assad, are a de facto support for ISIS. It is simply a question of calling it for what it is.

The current stated US political goal of removing both Assad and ISIS by supporting "vetted" islamists who supposedly fight BOTH Assad and ISIS and subsequently will created a democratic Syria is insane. There simply is no other word for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Asakaze,

Firstly, you're wrong about your so-called proof about an arms drop from the US to Daesh. It was, if I recall correctly a pretty amazing cock-up by the Americans. Totally the opposite of the dapper aluminium brim society to which you pledge allegiance.

Secondly, ignoring your off topic straw-man about Putin's continued bumping off of all opposition to his throne, you've gone off on a tangent about Turkey from some obscure news source alien to us all and you think this will deflect the questions pertinent to your conspiracy theories? Turkey is playing it's own game, if you think they are doing NATO's bidding you have less of a grasp on this than I already thought...

Heh, this is why you do not understand me - I do not have a horse in this race. I think religion and nationalism are the fodder of idiots. I'm looking on this as a humanist and a worried outsider.

So show me. Back to the topic. What evidence do you have to support your claim that the US or the West are really supporting Daesh contrary to the reality of what has been happening. Get back to me with some real evidence, or wear the Troofer headgear - your choice my friend xxx

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites