Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

At 4am on April 14, the United States, France and the United Kingdom executed a strike on Syria. The Syrian Free Press reported:

US Navy warships in the Red Sea and Air Force B-1B bombers and F-15 and F-16 aircraft rained dozens of ship- and air-launched cruise missiles down on the Syrian capital of Damascus, an airbase outside the city, a so-called chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and an equipment-storage facility and command post, also near Homs. B1-Bs are typically armed with JASSM cruise missiles, which have a 450 kg warhead and a range of 370 kms. US Navy warships launched Tomahawks, which have 450 kg warheads and an operational range of between 1,300 and 2,500 kms. The British Royal Air Force’s contingent for the assault consisted of four Tornado GR4 ground-attack aircraft armed with the Storm Shadow long-range air-to-ground missile, which the UK’s Defense Ministry said targeted ‘chemical weapons sites’ in Homs. These weapons have a range of 400 kms. Finally, France sent its Aquitaine frigate, armed with SCALP naval land-attack cruise missiles (SCALP is the French military’s name for the Storm Shadow), as well as several Dassault Rafale fighters, also typically armed with SCALP or Apache cruise missiles. According to the Russian defense ministry, the B-1Bs also fired GBU-38 guided air bombs. Undoubtedly weary of the prospect of having their aircraft shot down after Israel lost one of its F-16s over Syria in February, the Western powers presumably launched their weapons from well outside the range of Syrian air defenses, with all the targets located just 70-90 kms from the Mediterranean Sea, and having to fly through Lebanon first.

Recapping the information on the strike, the US and its allies used the following assets:

● 2 destroyers (USS Laboon, USS Higgins)

● 1 US cruiser (USS Monterey)

● 1 French frigate (Georges Leygues)

● 5 Rafale jets

● 4 Mirage 2000-5F

● 4 British Tornado fighter-bombers

● Virginia-class submarine USS John Warner

● 2 US B-1B bombers

Their ordnance brought to bear consisted of the following:

● The cruiser Monterey launched 30 Tomahawk missiles

● The destroyer Higgins 23 Tomahawks

● The destroyer Laboon 7 Tomahawks

● The submarine John Warner 6 Tomahawks

● 2 B-1 bombers 21 JASSM missiles

● 4 British Tornado GR4 fighter bombers 16 Storm-shadow missiles.

● The French Languedoc fired 3 MdCN land-attack missiles.

The US Pentagon reports the strike group targeted:

– 76 missiles at the Barzah research center in Damascus:

(Source)

– 22 missiles at an undefined “chemical” structure:

(Source)

– 7 missiles against an undefined “chemical bunker”:

(Source)

The Syrian anti-aircraft forces responded, firing a total of 112 air-defence missiles:

● the Pantsyr system fired 25 missiles and hit 24 targets;

● the Buk system fired 29 missiles and hit 24 targets;

● the Osa system fired 11 and hit 5 targets;

● the S-125 system fired 13 missiles and hit 5 targets;

● the Strela-10 system fired 5 missiles and hit 3 targets;

● the Kvadrat system fired 21 and hit 11 targets;

● the S-200 system fired 8 and hit no targets.

(Source)

The Russians have stated that the target of the raids and the effectiveness of the missiles have resulted in a big fiasco for the Americans:

● 4 missiles were launched targeting the area of the Damascus International Airport; these 4 missiles were intercepted.

● 12 missiles were launched targeting the Al-Dumayr Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.

● 18 missiles were launched  targeting the Bley Military Airport; these 18 missiles were intercepted.

● 12 missiles were launched targeting the Shayarat Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.

● 9-15 missiles were launched  targeting the Mezzeh Military Airport; 5 of them were intercepted.

● 16 missiles were launched targeting the Homs Military Airport; 13 of which were intercepted.

● 30 missiles were launched targeting targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani; 7 of which were intercepted.

The effectiveness of the attack is called into question, especially in light of the prompt reaction of the civilian population that took to the streets in support of Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government only a few hours after the US-led attack.

(Celebrations the morning of the 14th of April in Umayyad Square, Damascus )

What emerges immediately from the Syrian/Russian and American narratives are contrasting assessments of the outcome of the attack.

We can certainly try to dispute some statements. The Americans repeated that at least two chemical-weapons laboratories together with a chemical-weapons storage center were affected. As evidenced by the images shot by PressTV a few hours after the attack, the structure is destroyed but there are no chemical contaminations. To confirm this, the television operators were able to perform interviews and live footage a few meters from the site of the strike without experiencing any physical effects, which would have been impossible were the American version of events true, given that the release of chemical agents would have made the whole area inaccessible.

Further confirmation comes from Ammar Waqqaf interviewed on The Heat on CGTV, claiming that his relatives were about 500 meters from one of the alleged chemical-weapons research centers attacked by the Americans. Ammar says that even in this case, no chemical agent appears to have been released, thus disproving Washington’s claims.

Another important consideration concerns the targets. For Washington, the targets were limited to research laboratories (Barzah and Jaramani) and storage centers. But Moscow revealed that the objectives also included military bases as well as the civilian Damascus International Airport, namely: Al-Dumayr Military Airport, Bley Military Airport, Shayarat Military Airport, Mezzeh Military Airport, Homs Military Airport. These were mostly unsuccessful attacks.

In light of the foregoing, we can assume that the operational goal of the Americans was twofold. On the one hand, it was aimed at the media, to show a response to the (false) accusations of a chemical attack in Douma (Robert Frisk has just dismantled the propaganda and RT reminds us of the various false flags perpetrated by the US in the past to start wars); on the other, it was used by the military to actually permanently damage the Syrian Air Force, as suggested by the warmongering neocon Lindsey Graham. The failure of this latter objective could be seen in the following hours when the Syrian planes resumed operational tasks.

What does all this information tell us? First of all, the American goal was not to hit the non-existent chemical weapons or their production sites. The aim was to reduce as much as possible Syrian Air Force assets at different military airports. The mission was a failure, as reported by the Russian military envoy in Syria thanks to the air-defense measures of the Syrian forces as well as probably a high electronic-warfare (EW) contribution from the Russian forces present in the country. Very little has been leaked out in technical terms from the Russian Federation, which officially states that it did not contribute towards defending against the attack. It is probable that Russia played a decisive role in terms of EW, with its little-known but highly effective systems as demonstrated in previous attacks in 2017.

Moscow has no interest in promoting its cutting-edge EW systems, and often does not confirm the reports issued by more or less government agencies, as in the case of the USS Donald Cook in 2014. Yet Russia Beyond explains EW as probably being fundamental in foiling the American attack:

Before the electronic jamming system kicks in, the aircraft scans the radio signals in its zone of ​​activity. After detecting the traffic frequencies of the enemy’s equipment, the operator on board the aircraft enables the jamming system in the required bandwidth,” a defense industry source told Russia Beyond. In addition to onboard systems, there are ground-based Krasnukha-4 EW complexes stationed around the Khemeimim airbase, Russia’s key stronghold in the Middle East. Their purpose is to suppress enemy “eavesdropping” and weapons guidance systems. The Krasnukha-4 blinds enemy radar systems to targets at a distance of 250 km.

The general public is yet to understand that the American attack was a complete fiasco, much to the irritation of Lindsey Graham, thereby confirming Damascus’s narrative, which presented Syria’s response as decisive and effective.

The logic of the matter must also be considered. We know that the US and her allies launched 105 missiles aimed at various targets, including some military bases, but none of them hit the targets indicated, except for two buildings already emptied previously and a non-existent chemical-weapons depot. The Pentagon amplified the military report with the lie that only two research centers and a chemical-weapons depot were intentionally bombed with something like 105 missiles; this in order to account for the number of missiles launched and to drown out other assessments that contradict the preferred narrative. But it is ridiculous to believe that the US used 76 missiles to hit three buildings. A much more plausible explanation is that there were many more targets but only three of them were hit, this measly success carrying zero tactical or strategic importance.

We should ask ourselves what the real goal of Washington was. First, let us split the story into two parts. On the one hand we have a PR exercise, and on the other an intended military strategy. In the first case, Washington was able to pursue its self-assigned role as “protector of the weak”, like those victims of the alleged Douma chemical attack. The intended optics were those of a humanitarian intervention, in line with the West’s self-assigned role of regent of the post-World War II neoliberal world order. In reality, we know very well that US hegemony is based on millions of deaths in dozens of wars scattered around the globe. According to the fictitious narrative of the media, it all boils down to good-guys-versus-bad-guys, and Assad is the bad guy while the US is the good guy punishing the regime for the use of chemical weapons.

The success of PR exercise depends very little on the military outcome and much more on the story as told by the media. It is based solely on the affirmation of the role taken up by the US and her allies, that of being in the right and driven only by the noblest interests. But such a series of unreasonable lies has only served to drag the world into chaos, diminished the role of the mainstream media, and destroyed the credibility of practically the whole Western political class.

From a military point of view, however, the goals, intent and results show a far more disturbing result for Washington and her allies. Soviet-era weapons that were updated by Moscow and integrated into the Russian air defense infrastructure network severely degraded the effectiveness of the American attack. Washington wanted to ground the entire Syrian air force, hitting air bases with precision, but failed in this objective. It remains to be seen whether this attack was a prelude to something bigger, with the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group currently heading towards Syrian territorial waters. Following the logic of deconfliction with Russia, it seems unlikely that a more intense attack will occur, rumors even circulating that Mattis dissuaded Trump from targeting Russian and Iranian targets, being well aware of the risks in a Russian response.

Let us focus for a moment on the risks in this kind of scenario. We are told that it would have brought about World War Three. This is probably true. But the consequences could also entail something much worse for Washington than for the rest of the world. The rhetoric that an American attack on Russian forces in Syria would trigger a direct war between the two superpowers is certainly true, but perhaps it is wrong in its interpretation. The danger seems to lie less in the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse and more in exposing the US’s inability to go toe to toe with a peer competitor.

While we cannot (and hope not to) test this hypothesis, we can certainly join the dots. If Soviet-era systems, with a slight Russian modernization, can nullify an American attack, what could the Russian forces do themselves? They could probably even block an attack of the scale visited on Baghdad, where several hundred missiles were directed towards civilian and military targets. It would be highly unlikely in such a scenario for Washington to peddle the false propaganda of a successful attack with little in terms of bomb-damage assessment commensurate with the number of missiles launched.

Already in the April 14 attack, the explanation that 76 cruise missiles were directed against three buildings is ridiculous but is nevertheless sustained thanks to the lies of the mainstream media and the paucity of available information. However, when thinking of 500 Tomahawks launched with limited damage to the Syrian infrastructure, even that would be impossible to sell to a very ignorant and deceived public. It would be the definitive proof of the decline in American military effectiveness and the potency of Russian air-defense systems. Just like during Putin’s presentation of new weapons some months back, when the Empire feels its core (military power) is threatened, it simply dismisses such reports as false, in the process becoming a victim of its own propaganda.

Yet one would only need to listen to the words of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Michael Griffin, in a conference at the Hudson Institute where he explained how Moscow and Beijing capabilities are far more advanced in hypersonic and supersonic missile defense and attack capabilities. He openly explained that Washington takes about 16 years to implement a paper-to-service idea, while its rivals in a few years have shown that they can move from concept to practical development, gaining a huge advantage over rivals like Washington.

The problem is inherent for the United States in its need to keep alive a war machine based on inflated military spending that creates enormous pockets of corruption and inefficiency. Just look at the F-35 project and its constant problems. Although Moscow’s spending is less than twelve times that of the United States, it has succeeded in developing systems like hypersonic missiles that are still in the testing phase in the United States, or systems like the S-500, which the US does not possess.

The S-300, S-400, P-800 anti-ship missiles and the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missiles, in addition to EW, pose a fundamental problem for Washington in dealing with attacks against a peer competitor. The military in Washington are probably well aware of the risks of revealing the US to be a paper tiger, so they prefer to avoid any direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, more for the purposes of maintaining military prestige than out of a desire to avoid risking World War Three. If Russian forces ever were targeted by the US, in all probability Moscow would simply disable the electronics of the US ship rather than sinking it, leaving it to float in the Mediterranean uncontrolled for days.

The last fig leaf hiding the US military’s inadequacy rests in Hollywood propaganda that presents the US military as practically invincible. Accordingly, some sites have spread stories that Russia had been forewarned of the attack and that the whole bombing event was the same sort of farce as a year ago. In the first place, it is important to clarify that Moscow had not been given advanced warning of the targets, and the reason for this is simple: the attack was real and, as explained above, did not succeed precisely because of Moscow and Damuscus’s effective parries and blocks.

In reality, Washington has failed in its military strategy, and the media have turned to the usual propaganda of chemical weapons and the need to enforce justice in the world and proclaim a non-existent success. In the meantime, Moscow fine-tunes its weapons and prepares to deliver the S-300 to the Syrian state and its allies (Lebanon?), effectively limiting Washington’s ability to attack in the Middle East. This is a fitting conclusion for a story that has only damaged the status of the United States and her allies in the Middle East, bringing Syria closer to a final victory.

Advertisements

Syria, Morning After “Horrible American Strikes”- Syrians Are Partying On Damascus Streets

WW3 in Europe against Russia would be a win/win situation for the USA

Who’s Driving the Latest Nato Exercises?

Written by Lindsey German

The escalating tensions with Russia should be of concern to everyone says Lindsey German

NatoMayhem564

‘Britain is part of the deployment across eastern Europe, sending 800 troops to Estonia’


This week we are witnessing another example of politicians and military figures talking peace but preparing for war. A thousand US troops have arrived in Poland as part of a 4000-strong deployment, its largest since the Cold War and brought forward to predate the inauguration of Donald Trump. The move is being driven by a decision at the Nato summit in Warsaw last year, itself reflecting the expansionist politics of Nato vis a vis Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, a major Nato policy has been eastward expansion right up to the borders of Russia, incorporating within its membership all the eastern European countries which have signed up to the EU since 2004, and demanding Nato membership as a future condition of membership.

It also reflects the desires of the very right wing governments in Poland and the Baltic states who have been at the forefront of pushing for a more aggressive Nato policy against Russia. Britain is part of the deployment across eastern Europe, sending 800 troops to Estonia. In addition, Germany is expanding its military role, hence a growing support for militarism there. In addition to US troops there are hundreds of US armoured vehicles and tanks in Germany to be transported to Poland and elsewhere. Already the troops have brought in bags full of US flags for grateful Poles to wave, as though the troop manoeuvres are some sort of liberation for the people of Poland, rather than back up for its increasingly right wing government.

These manoeuvres will not de-escalate tensions with Russia. They are not designed to. Instead, they mark the escalation of Nato policy over recent years. When the Cold War ended, the agreement between the west and Russia was that Nato would not expand eastwards beyond the reunited Germany. The opposite has happened. The escalating tensions with Russia should be of concern to everyone. This is not to imply any support whatsoever for Putin or his policies but it is to recognise that Nato is pursuing an aggressive policy, not a defensive one.

It is also to recognise that anti-Russian sentiment in the west is probably greater than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The furore in the US over Trump’s relations with Russia must surely be seen in part as an attempt to prevent him from any closer relations with Russia – a position in which he is quite isolated within the Republican party. In Britain in recent months, there have been scares over Russian planes and ships near British territory. Yet it is widely acknowledged that there is no immediate or even medium term threat of Russian invasion in Eastern Europe. The danger is that increased troop movements can lead to much greater tensions, possibly accompanied by accidents or misunderstandings which can lead to conflict.

Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman was surely right therefore to caution over the latest troop deployments when he talked to journalists yesterday. “Jeremy has said repeatedly that he has lots of criticisms of the Russian government, both in relation to what has happened in the Middle East and domestically. But what we don’t want to see is a ratcheting up of tensions between Russia and the west, as has been taking place. We want talks and engagement to wind down military tensions, particularly on the Russian/Nato border and in the Middle East.”

Who could argue with that? Well apparently, the shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith is ‘livid’ about it. She shouldn’t be. Labour has spent far too long following the line of the Ministry of Defence (Griffith went on a trip to Estonia with the MOD) and of right wing commentators in supporting wars. Yet the record is appalling. The Middle East is in part destroyed after Iraq, Libya and Syria, and Afghanistan remains mired in war. Meanwhile the tensions across Europe are worsening. The people who brought us the past wars are the same as those urging further military intervention now.

One reason Corbyn has been elected twice as Labour leader is his opposition to such wars and his concerns for promoting peace rather than war. Unfortunately, the record of many Labour MPs is nowhere near as good. They have shown recently over debates on Chilcot and Saudi Arabia an unwillingness to confront their past mistakes and a blind commitment to supporting all wars.

With a Trump presidency beginning next week, the world is in dangerous and uncharted waters. Labour politicians should not be arguing for increasing instability. Nor should they view British troops in a sabre-rattling exercise in Estonia as doing anything useful. In addition, given the huge crisis over the NHS and care, surely this money could be far better spent.

2016 US Election Result: Yet More War

2016 US Election Result: Yet More War

‘Far from deterring the US’s opponents in the Middle East, the more muscular approach is likely to draw all sides into deeper conflict’

Raceoftheunloved564


What will the US election mean for the country’s involvement in wars and interventions? The answer is, whoever wins it’s likely to get worse. This lies in part in the nature of the candidates. Trump may talk isolationism but is unlikely to go down that road, given the concerns of important sections of the US ruling class –  not that there is not too much military action being carried out by its armed forces, but too little. Trump is, in any case, wildly unpredictable on these questions.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is all too predictable. Her record as Secretary of State was consistently hawkish, from her endorsement of the regime change in Libya in 2011, her intervention in the Syrian war from 2012 onwards and her public glee at the deaths of Gadaffi and Bin Laden. It is clear that her election to the presidency will herald an escalation of intervention in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

In this, she reflects the concerns by many of those involved with formulating foreign policy that Obama has been too averse to military action, and in particular that the US should engage in ‘limited’ airstrikes using cruise missiles, and that it should enforce no fly zones or ‘safe’ zones to stop Syrian and Russian bombing. An article in the Washington Post talks of a number of forthcoming reports and analyses which reflect an increasingly bipartisan approach to foreign policy and especially to Syria.

The article says: ‘Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.’ This in itself is an admission of the failure of US foreign policy going back decades. The fall of Saddam’s Iraq strengthened his rival Iran – certainly an unintended consequence of the US intervention. The ‘chaos in the Middle East’ cannot be extricated from the wars, occupations and bombings which have been constant for a decade and a half. And the need to ‘check Russia in Europe’ is the justification for US backed Nato expansion which now stretches to Russian western borders.

Enforcing no fly zones or any variants thereof will not be a means to promoting peace, but a further military escalation of the war, as will further bombing or missile attacks. According to Brian Katulis, a Middle East analyst at the Centre for American Progress, ‘Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding a more muscular and more “centrist internationalism.”’

Far from deterring the US’s opponents in the Middle East, the more muscular approach is likely to draw all sides into deeper conflict.

The only barrier to this course is the lack of support for such action among public opinion in the US. As is the case in Britain, the lessons of these wars have been better learnt by the people who suffer as a result of them than they have been by the politicians

First NATO causes Libya’s refugee problem and now it goes to war against them

The next war in Libya will be against refugees

Plans have already been drawn up to send around 1,000 UK troops says Chris Nineham

CNLibPic


‘A lot of Libyans think of it as a puppet government.’ So said Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya on the BBC on Monday, about the new regime trying to establish itself in Libya.

The Libyans would be right. Fayez al Sarraj, so called ‘Prime Minister designate’ was shipped in on a Saudi warship from exile in Tunisia last month. Neither of the existing authorities in Libya, including the Tobruk House of Representatives which can claim some democratic mandate, backs Sarraj. He is still holed up with his team in a heavily guarded naval base on the edge of Tripoli because it is unsafe for him to travel in the country.

This week, the G5 powers met in Berlin partly to express support for Sarraj and to plan how best to impose his government on the Libyan people. The week before, British Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond visited Libya to meet Sarraj and give what he describes as his ‘full support’.

The unseemly scramble to enforce the Sarraj government is driven by two main concerns. First, anxiety about advances made by Isis into key oil producing areas. US officials have expressed worry that Isis is using its occupation of the key port of Sirte to take over the oil and gas rich towns of Ras Lanuf and Sidra which would allow it strategic control of the whole Sirte Basin production area. Libya is the second most important gas producer in the world and the closest major oil producer to Europe.

The second main driver is the refugee crisis. The EU deal with Turkey is an attempt to close down refugee access to Europe via the eastern route. This, and the warmer weather, has increased the flow from the south over the Mediterranean crossing, with tragic results. Working in close co-ordination, the EU, NATO and the UN have been unrolling a military plan, Operation Sophia, to stem the flow and force the refugees back to Africa.  

A UK government source said Operation Sophia ‘has achieved a lot in terms of bringing the numbers down. But one of the challenges is that it is only operating on the high seas.’The problem is in other words, that any push back of refugees would need a viable partner on the mainland.

This is where Sarraj comes in. Not only will he co-operate with the clampdown against refugees, crucially, western leaders are confident he will invite western military in to help. NATO is pushing for a 6,000 strong military force from Europe to go in. Plans have already been drawn up to send around 1,000 UK troops, ostensibly to train up a new Libyan army. But any foreign force of that size in a country riven by war is almost bound to get involved in combat.

The scepticism on the ground in Libya is learnt from bitter experience. Last time the western powers organised an intervention in Libya in 2011, the no-fly zone and the resulting bombing raids were presented as an operation to head off a regime attack on Benghazi, the centre of opposition.

Benghazi was secured in a few days. What followed was five months of some of the most intensive bombing in history during which time 30-40,000 people died. The operation ended with the killing of President Ghaddafi in what independent observers reported was a western orchestrated operation. Barely able to contain her excitement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented ‘We came, we saw, he died’.  As well as killing on an industrial scale, the bombardment devastated the country’s infrastructure and led directly to the country’s political fragmentation. It was these conditions that IS were able to exploit to establish control of important sections of the coastal strip.

The plans for Libya are the direct opposite of a humanitarian intervention. They want us to go to war against the refugees. We must not let them.

Source: Stop the War Coalition

US-led Coalition Strikes Syrian Army instead of ’ISIS’: Several Dead, Injured

US-led coalition warplanes are reported to have killed four Syrian soldiers in the Dier al Zor province, which is mostly under the control of “ISIS”. 

A Syrian government source confirmed that the airstrike had taken place and that there had been casualties. The source also added that vehicles had been destroyed.

 A total of four Syrian Army soldiers have been killed, while a further 16 were injured, a government source told RIA Novosti.
 “The airstrike hit an ammunition dump belonging to the Syrian Army in Dier al Zor. According to our information, four soldiers have died and 16 were injured. Two tanks were also damaged. This was the work of the US-led coalition,” the government source added.
The so-called Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said an air raid “by the international coalition” hit the camp in the west of Deir Ezzor province, “around two kilometers one mile from an area controlled by “ISIS”.
 “Regime forces have never previously been hit by raids from the international coalition, which was targeting extremist bases and oil tankers in Deir Ezzor,” Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.
 The Dier al Zor province is eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by “ISIS”.The region is of extreme strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for “ISIS”.
 On November 24, a Turkish Air Force F-16 jet shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber over Syria.

Ankara claims the Russian plane briefly crossed into Turkish airspace. One of the Russian pilots was killed by Syrian rebels as he ejected from the stricken plane, while the other was rescued in a swift operation during which one Russian serviceman was killed.

 Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
 07-12-2015 | 10:22

 US-Led Coalition Targets Military Base in Deir Ezzor: 3 Syrian Soldiers Martyred

Damascus said on Monday that three Syrrian soldiers were martyred when US-led coalition warplanes struck a Syrian army post in Deir Ezzor.

“Four US-led coalition warplanes targeted with 9 rockets one of the Syrian army’s posts in Deir Ezzor province, claiming the lives of 3 soldiers and injuring 13 others,” the Syrian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The strike also destroyed “three armored vehicles, four military vehicles, 23 mm machinegun, 14.5 machinegun and a depot of arms and ammunition,” the statement added.

The ministry said it had sent a letter o the UN Secretary General and Chairman of the UN Security Council in which Damascus “strongly condemns this heinous aggression by the coalition and affirms that it contradicts with the goals and wills of the UN Charter.”

“Syria called on the Security Council to immediately take the urgent measures to prevent such aggressions from occurring again, adding that the aggression on the military post hinders the efforts aiming to fight terrorism and reiterates that the US-led coalition lacks seriousness and credibility in the fight against terrorism,” SANA news agency cited the Syrian foreign ministry’s letter as saying.

Related Videos

 

Related Articles


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Emergency Protests Across UK: Don’t Let Cameron Take Us into Another War

Global Research, December 01, 2015
Stop the War Coalition 30 November 2015

syria_parliament_dont_bomb_460_3

David Cameron has announced that MPs will vote this Wednesday 2 December on bombing Syria. 

Stop the War is asking all its groups and supporters to protest tomorrow night, Tuesday 1 December, against plans for bombing .

In London we will be assembling at 6pm in Parliament Square where we will hold a rally and then march to Labour and Tory Party headquarters, both nearby.

Elsewhere there will be protests in town and city centres around the country.

Our campaigning has already made a big impact and been widely reported. Over 40,000 people have already lobbied their MPs via the Stop the War website alone.

The Mirror, the Mail, The Financial Times and Observer have all come out against bombing, recognising how incoherent and dangerous David Cameron’s plans are.

We are urging people to use the little remaining time and every means available to maximise the pressure on MPs.

Please encourage everyone you can to lobby their MP by phone or email and publicise the protests as widely as possible.

We must do everything we can to stop MPs voting the UK into its fourth war on a Muslim country in 14 years.

Facebook Event…

This page will be updated as we get more information. Follow theDon’t Bomb Syria Action Page for updates of protests round the country.

Source: Stop the War Coalition

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

%d bloggers like this: