Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
It doesn't matter who the UN works for. The UN charter is extremely clear. And there's no way around it.
Who is Fighting Who in Syria?
- Thread starter Moonlight
- Start date
It doesn't matter who the UN works for. The UN charter is extremely clear. And there's no way around it.
LordTyrannus
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- -29
- Country
- Location
There is only one major conflict in syria
Muslims vs infidels
Muslims vs infidels
M.R.9
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 640
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
What is clear ? a battle of shampain , What the gave to the serbian forces ?
Möbius Curve
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Who is fighting who?
The Syrian Government under Bashar al Assad is backed by two of its strong Allies, Russia and Iran, almost dominantly, though Syrian Government Forces is also augmented by Foreign Loyalists mostly against ISIS/Daesh and other terrorist groups. Liwa Al Quds (Palestinian Brigade: Comprised of Palestinians who were expelled after creation of Israel in 1948 and are predominantly Sunni) is also supporting Syrian Government forces.
Turky: Groups like Zinki Movement, National Front for Liberation, Jaish al Izza, Free Syrian Army (FSA), are supported by Ankara Government. They are also fighting with Syrian Government forces and their bigger nemesis are Kurds: Kurds have a chequered history of attacks on Turkish Military bordering Northern Turkey, particularly pushing for creation of independent Kurdistan. Keep in mind that Turkey had been a major Gateway for the entry of Jihadist Groups from the Northern Turkey.
Israel: the country which single handedly did the MOST damage to Syria by the creation of ISIS/Daesh. Since the creation of Deash/ISIS it gained momentum, attracted a large number of recruits from other splintering Jihadi groups, heated inter-rebel wars and stunned the world by its brutal executions, thus psychology of Fear. But their KHILAFA is crumbled as of Now and Syrian Government forces are cleaning their last resort in Eastern Syria. Here, too, keep in mind that for a long duration Syrian Presidency was target of Israel. Read about "Eli Cohan", the MOSSAD spy who penetrated the highest echelons of Syrian government.
U.S: Same tactics like Israel. They supported ISIS/Daesh as well and overtimes accidentally dropped weapons for them, apparently mistakenly. Now they support YPG, Kurdish group responsible for Terror attacks on Turkish Military.
View media item 17692Saudi Arabia: It too played a very dubious role. Keep in mind the Saudi Billion Dollars purchase of Defence hardware from America. Possibly it could have been landing in Syria too, to different Wahabist/Salafist Jihadi groups. And the scandal of Saudi Prince smuggling Captagon Pills, which ISIS fighters used during War for increased ecstasy is also eye opening.
Tonnes and tonnes of material is available on Syrian war. Pursue the independent channels and you will find what you are looking far.
Though Syria was betrayed and I always feel sorry, the way we were misfed wrong information from Western Channels, and salute to the courage of Syrian Government forces who have regained their lost territory after Eight years of bloody War, but at a very cost, definitely.
The Syrian Government under Bashar al Assad is backed by two of its strong Allies, Russia and Iran, almost dominantly, though Syrian Government Forces is also augmented by Foreign Loyalists mostly against ISIS/Daesh and other terrorist groups. Liwa Al Quds (Palestinian Brigade: Comprised of Palestinians who were expelled after creation of Israel in 1948 and are predominantly Sunni) is also supporting Syrian Government forces.
Turky: Groups like Zinki Movement, National Front for Liberation, Jaish al Izza, Free Syrian Army (FSA), are supported by Ankara Government. They are also fighting with Syrian Government forces and their bigger nemesis are Kurds: Kurds have a chequered history of attacks on Turkish Military bordering Northern Turkey, particularly pushing for creation of independent Kurdistan. Keep in mind that Turkey had been a major Gateway for the entry of Jihadist Groups from the Northern Turkey.
Israel: the country which single handedly did the MOST damage to Syria by the creation of ISIS/Daesh. Since the creation of Deash/ISIS it gained momentum, attracted a large number of recruits from other splintering Jihadi groups, heated inter-rebel wars and stunned the world by its brutal executions, thus psychology of Fear. But their KHILAFA is crumbled as of Now and Syrian Government forces are cleaning their last resort in Eastern Syria. Here, too, keep in mind that for a long duration Syrian Presidency was target of Israel. Read about "Eli Cohan", the MOSSAD spy who penetrated the highest echelons of Syrian government.
U.S: Same tactics like Israel. They supported ISIS/Daesh as well and overtimes accidentally dropped weapons for them, apparently mistakenly. Now they support YPG, Kurdish group responsible for Terror attacks on Turkish Military.
View media item 17692Saudi Arabia: It too played a very dubious role. Keep in mind the Saudi Billion Dollars purchase of Defence hardware from America. Possibly it could have been landing in Syria too, to different Wahabist/Salafist Jihadi groups. And the scandal of Saudi Prince smuggling Captagon Pills, which ISIS fighters used during War for increased ecstasy is also eye opening.
Tonnes and tonnes of material is available on Syrian war. Pursue the independent channels and you will find what you are looking far.
Though Syria was betrayed and I always feel sorry, the way we were misfed wrong information from Western Channels, and salute to the courage of Syrian Government forces who have regained their lost territory after Eight years of bloody War, but at a very cost, definitely.
The more Complicated it becomes, the more Interesting & meaningful it becomes!
Nasr
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,960
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014.
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists.
Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014.
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists.
Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
Nasr
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,960
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
It has been reported that 600 additional zionist-american military personnel have arrived at a zionist-american military base in Syria. Report comes amid claims made by Trump administration, stating that american military will withdraw from Syria. Story still developing, awaiting further details on this news.
===========================
Some 600 US Soldiers Arrived at Syria Military Bases Amid Pullout - Reports
In December, US President Donald Trump declared victory over the Daesh* terrorist group and said he would withdraw some 2,000 US troops who are currently deployed in the Middle Eastern country.
Around 600 US soldiers arrived at Syrian military bases located to the east of the Euphrates, Turkey's Anadolu news agency reported on Monday.
The US servicemen are now located at bases in Aleppo province, including in the Sarin region, as these are expected to become the key points where the US troops will be withdrawing from the war-torn state, Anadolu specified.
The recently-arrived American military will assist the troops during the withdrawal process.
This comes after last week, CNN reported, citing sources, that Washington has sent additional armed forces to Syria to guarantee the secure withdrawal of its troops from the Middle Eastern state.
The move follows Donald Trump's December announcement that the terrorist group Daesh had been defeated, and that he would withdraw some 2,000 US troops currently deployed in Syria. Washington, however, said that it would not disclose a timeline for withdrawing its troops, and pledged that the US-led international coalition's fight against terrorism would continue.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201901281071879593-syria-us-soldiers/
===========================
Some 600 US Soldiers Arrived at Syria Military Bases Amid Pullout - Reports
In December, US President Donald Trump declared victory over the Daesh* terrorist group and said he would withdraw some 2,000 US troops who are currently deployed in the Middle Eastern country.
Around 600 US soldiers arrived at Syrian military bases located to the east of the Euphrates, Turkey's Anadolu news agency reported on Monday.
The US servicemen are now located at bases in Aleppo province, including in the Sarin region, as these are expected to become the key points where the US troops will be withdrawing from the war-torn state, Anadolu specified.
The recently-arrived American military will assist the troops during the withdrawal process.
This comes after last week, CNN reported, citing sources, that Washington has sent additional armed forces to Syria to guarantee the secure withdrawal of its troops from the Middle Eastern state.
The move follows Donald Trump's December announcement that the terrorist group Daesh had been defeated, and that he would withdraw some 2,000 US troops currently deployed in Syria. Washington, however, said that it would not disclose a timeline for withdrawing its troops, and pledged that the US-led international coalition's fight against terrorism would continue.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201901281071879593-syria-us-soldiers/
Last edited:
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
German court hands down historic Syrian torture verdict
www.dw.com
German court hands down historic Syrian torture verdict – DW – 02/24/2021
A former member of the Syrian secret police has been sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for being an accomplice to crimes against humanity in his homeland. The trial in Koblenz is the first of its kind worldwide.
www.dw.com
A new convoy of U.S. soldiers has arrived in Syria, consisting of 40 vehicles, including five Bradley fighting vehicles. This convoy was reported to have entered through the Al Waleed border crossing from Iraq and is intended for U.S. military bases in areas controlled by the PKK/YPG in eastern Syria, particularly in Deir Ezzor and Al Hasakahprovinces.
Key Details:
- Purpose of the Convoy: The U.S. military has been reinforcing its presence in Syria, especially in regions where it supports the PKK/YPG forces against ISIS. Local sources indicate that the convoy aims to bolster U.S. military operations and maintain control over oil fields in the area, which are strategically important.
- Background of U.S. Involvement: Since 2015, U.S. forces have been involved in training and equipping Kurdish forces (YPG) as part of the fight against ISIS. This has included significant military support and resources directed towards these groups, which Turkey considers terrorist organizations.
- Local Reactions: The Syrian government has consistently protested against the presence of U.S. forces on its territory, labeling their actions as illegal occupation. Despite these protests, international bodies like the UN have not taken substantial action against U.S. military operations in Syria.
- Current Security Situation: The arrival of additional U.S. troops comes amid ongoing tensions and violence in the region, including recent attacks on U.S. forces by Iranian-backed groups and ongoing conflicts involving various factions within Syria.
Implications:
The deployment of U.S. soldiers and military equipment in Syria continues to be a contentious issue, influencing regional dynamics and complicating relationships with neighboring countries, particularly Turkey and Iran. The strategic focus on oil resources also raises questions about the long-term objectives of U.S. involvement in Syria and its impact on local populations and governance.This situation reflects broader geopolitical tensions and underscores the complexities of foreign military presence in conflict zones, where local and international interests often collide.
China has issued a strong condemnation of NATO, stating that the alliance has brought war and disaster to various regions, including Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This criticism reflects China's broader stance on Western military interventions and its support for nations affected by such actions.
Key Points:
- Historical Context: China’s statement highlights NATO's military interventions in several countries over the past two decades. These interventions have often been criticized for leading to prolonged conflicts and humanitarian crises. Notably, NATO's operations in Afghanistan and Libya were justified on humanitarian grounds but resulted in significant instability and loss of life.
- NATO's Impact: The Chinese government emphasizes that NATO's actions have not only destabilized the regions involved but have also contributed to a broader global insecurity. The reference to specific countries illustrates China's view that NATO's military strategies have consistently failed to achieve lasting peace.
- Geopolitical Implications: This criticism comes amid rising tensions between China and Western nations, particularly the United States. China's alignment with Russia against NATO's expansion and military activities indicates a strategic partnership aimed at countering Western influence.
- International Relations: China's remarks may resonate with countries that have experienced NATO interventions, fostering solidarity among nations critical of Western military policies. This could further complicate international relations as countries navigate their positions regarding NATO and its actions.
Conclusion
China's assertion that NATO has caused war and disaster underscores its opposition to Western military interventions and its desire to position itself as a leader advocating for peace and stability in international affairs. As geopolitical dynamics continue to evolve, this narrative may influence how nations engage with both NATO and each other in the context of global security.Syrian opposition forces have successfully captured the strategically significant 46th Regiment base located west of Aleppo. This development marks a notable achievement in the ongoing conflict, as the base has been a key military position for government forces.
Key Details:
- Capture of the Base: The 46th Regiment base, situated on the vital Atareb-Idlib-Aleppo road, was taken over by opposition groups, enhancing their control over the area. This operation involved isolating the base by occupying surrounding villages, which facilitated the assault.
- Strategic Importance: The capture of the 46th Regiment is significant as it allows opposition forces to disrupt government supply lines and strengthen their foothold in western Aleppo. Control of such bases is crucial for both tactical advantages and morale among opposition fighters.
- Military Operations: Reports indicate that various opposition factions coordinated their efforts to seize the base, deploying substantial manpower and resources. The operation reflects ongoing efforts by these groups to consolidate power in regions of Syria still contested by government forces.
- Broader Context: This event occurs within the larger framework of the Syrian Civil War, where control over military installations often shifts between government and opposition forces. The dynamics of such conflicts can lead to rapid changes in territorial control, impacting both military strategies and civilian safety.
Conclusion
The capture of the 46th Regiment base by Syrian opposition forces underscores the fluid nature of the conflict in Syria. As these groups continue to assert control over strategic locations, the implications for both military operations and humanitarian conditions in the region remain significant. The ongoing struggle for territory highlights the complexities of the Syrian Civil War and its impact on local populations.Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
