Syrian Civil War (Graphic Photos/Vid Not Allowed)

[mike2000 is back]

Is this even a real question? Those forces consist of many foreigners that have killed many Syrian soldiers.

This would be like asking why the U.K. would attack a terrorist group on its territory that is funded by foreign countries and consists of foreigners.

In military objectives they are securing the border and preventing foreigners and weapons from pouring into Syria. They are preventing additional reinforcements and equipment to be moved to additional fronts; Aleppo was taken in large part because supply routes and reinforcements were blocked. Furthermore, the Syrian military and its allies are expanding a buffer around the T-4 airbase and Palmyra so it does not fall again. The objective of this buffer is to eventually move to Deir Ez-Zior which has been besieged for years and is strategically important.

Does that answer your question?

You didn't get my point, I was responding to the other guys who say U.S, Britain are helping ISIS in Iraq, and sending them in Syria. You know the conspiracy theories believers, the type who also believe WTC was a false flag, Bin laden wasn't killed in Abbotabad, Soviet union communism was created by Anglo Zionist Jews etc etc. lol

 

[ptldM3]

US forces destroyed group of Assad terrorists near Tanaf crossing.

After rebels expelled ISIS from that area Assad terrorists began attacking them. When ISIS was there they did not attack.

That is because there was no Syrian forces anywhere near that area when Isis was around the border. Which proves you know nothing about the conflict or how warfare works.

Syrian forces were able to take the border because they drove Isis out of Palmyra and as a result they built a large buffer around Palmyra, the T-4 airbase and M20 highway. This buffer is to prevent Palmyra from falling again. So much for your Assad and Isis working together conspiracies, the fact is the Syrian military and its allies were battling Isis towards Palmyra, eventually took the city and started advancing, north, east and south of the city, they have been battling anyone in their way regardless if they are Isis or moderate terrorists.

 

[mike2000 is back]

U.S coalition-Backed Forces Begin Assault on Raqqa, ISIS Stronghold in Syria

• The road from Raqqa, Syria, last month. Thousands of civilians have fled as a coalition led by the United States has advanced on the city, an Islamic State stronghold.
  YOUSSEF YOUSSEF / EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
  By ANNE BARNARD
  JUNE 6, 2017

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Forces backed by the United States said on Tuesday that they had begun a long-anticipated offensive against Islamic State militants in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, the group’s self-proclaimed capital.

The forces, collectively called the Syrian Democratic Forces and made up of Syrian Kurdish fighters and Arab militias, have over the past month surrounded Raqqa from the east, north and west. On Tuesday, they began an assault on the city limits, aided by airstrikes from the United States-led coalition and by artillery.

The battle opened in the middle of a new outbreak of diplomatic turmoil between allies in the fight against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Even as the initial barrage was beginning, President Trump published Twitter postsexcoriating Qatar, the host of the American air base at the heart of the effort. And he declared his support for Saudi Arabia and other Arab neighbors as they moved to isolate Qatar and single it out for blame for terrorism and regional intrigue.


Pentagon officials insisted that the surge in tensions between the Saudi and Qatari camps — both members of the anti-Islamic State coalition — would not affect operations against the militant group in Raqqa and Mosul, Iraq.


In Raqqa on Tuesday, shops were closed and people were staying inside, residents said. Electricity and water were out. Bakeries were still working but were expected to shut down soon for lack of flour.

One resident said coalition warplanes and drones had attacked ferries transporting vegetables across the Euphrates River into Raqqa, causing the deliveries to halt.

Residents of Raqqa say that in recent weeks numerous Islamic State fighters and their families have left the city, heading southeast along the Euphrates to the city of Mayadeen, in Deir al-Zour Province. Civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure from airstrikes by the United States-led coalition sharply increased as the fighting approached, according to residents.

In Syria, the Islamic State is expected to make a final stand in the province of Deir al-Zour. Its forces have for some time surrounded 200,000 people in a section of the provincial capital, also called Deir al-Zour, that is controlled by the Syrian government.

That has set off a race to Deir al-Zour among an array of rival forces aiming to take control of the nearby border with Iraq.
Moving east from central Syria and the desert city of Palmyra are forces fighting for the government of President Bashar al-Assad, including Syrian Army troops and Iran-backed militias like Hezbollah. Moving north from rebel-held southern Syria are American-backed insurgent groups. The Syrian Democratic Forces attacking Raqqa also aim to continue southeast to the same area.


On Tuesday, the United States-led coalition also launched airstrikes directly against Syrian government forces for the second time in less than a month. The United States Central Command said that Syrian forces — more than 60 soldiers, with some armored vehicles and heavy weaponry — had breached the security zone around the base at Tanf in southeastern Syria near the Jordanian and Iraqi borders. American and British forces there are training Syrian opposition fighters to battle the Islamic State, and airstrikes by U.S and British air force were carried out under similar circumstances on May 18, officials said.

There were unconfirmed reports of new forces joining the fray in Raqqa Province too, with pro-government forces moving into the province from the east.

For now, though, the Raqqa offensive could take a long time, with a very high toll, judging from the protracted offensive in Iraq against the Islamic State’s other major urban stronghold, in Mosul.

Even with a victory, the aftermath of the Raqqa fight could be difficult, as well, with many residents fearful of the Kurdish militias involved in the attack. The Syrian Democratic Forces say they will hand power to a local council made up of Arab and Kurdish civilians, but in other places where they have done that, like the city of Manbij, many residents say the councils are a thin facade for the militias’ control.

The American military said in a statement that the fight for Raqqa would be “long and difficult” but that along with the Mosul battle, it would “deliver a decisive blow to the idea of ISIS as a physical caliphate.”



Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, the commander of the coalition and British commander in Syria and Iraq Major General Rupert Jones , said in the statement that it would be hard for the Islamic State to convince new recruits “that ISIS is a winning cause when they just lost their twin ‘capitals’ in both Iraq and Syria.”


He added: “We all saw the heinous attack in Manchester, England. ISIS threatens all of our nations, not just Iraq and Syria, but in our own homelands as well. This cannot stand.”

Airwars, an organization based in London that tracks civilian casualties from international airstrikes, called on all forces to take all precautions to avoid harm to civilians.

For weeks, Islamic State fighters have been carting away weapons, supplies and even large generators and telecommunications equipment to their fallback positions in Mayadeen, residents said.

On Tuesday, the Islamic State ordered internet cafes to close by Wednesday, residents said, in order to further limit information reaching the wider world.

 

[Aramagedon]

Huh.....but U.S/U.K/France are the main western powers helping the Iraqis army(and even Shi'ite militias) in its battle against ISIS. Where do you think the vast majority of PMU arms and air cover they get comes from?

If it wasn't Americans there would be no conflicts in the ME and in larger extent even Islamic countries. Fake masonic 9/11, attack to Iraq, attack to Libya, bloody attack to Yemen, Taliban, Fsa, Nusra, ISIL etc are all made by Americans for security of israel. Whatever makes the US weaker is a good thing for security and humanity of the world.

https://archive.org/details/10ALQAEDATRAININGMANUELOperationCyclone1979179_201610

www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s

www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/how-america-made-isis_b_5751876.html

www.express.co.uk/news/world/737430/CIA-ISIS-Wikileaks-Carter-Cables-III-Julian-Assange

www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

 

[Hindustani78]

http://aa.com.tr/en/europe/russia-says-daesh-struck-pyd-pkk-deal-to-leave-raqqah/838402

Speaking at a briefing in Moscow, Sergey Surovikin, a commander of Russian forces in Syria, accused U.S.-led coalition forces and the PYD/PKK -- fighting under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) -- of making an agreement with Daesh.

Surovikin also said that, according to reliable sources, Daesh fighters agreed with the PYD/PKK at the beginning of June to withdraw from districts 19 kilometers (around 12 miles) from Raqqah to Palmyra.

At least 45 civilians have been killed in airstrikes carried out by the U.S.-led coalition and attacks by the PYD/PKK in Raqqah recently, according to local residents.

Raqqah locals told Anadolu Agency the city's western Mashlab district had been hit on Thursday by more than 20 coalition airstrikes in which white phosphorus was used.

Meanwhile, the PYD/PKK has been shelling Raqqah’s city center -- with coalition air support -- for the last two days.

The PYD/PKK currently controls Raqqah’s 17th Unit area and now surrounds the Daesh-held city from the north, northeast, and northwest.

On June 6, the U.S.-led coalition announced the launch of a military campaign aimed at retaking Raqqah from Daesh.

U.S. support for the SDF has soured relations with Ankara due to the prominent role the PYD/PKK plays in the group.

Turkey considers the PYD/PKK to be the Syrian offshoot of the PKK, a designated terrorist organization in Turkey, the U.S. and EU.

However, the U.S. views the PYD/PKK as its ally in the fight against Daesh in northern Syria.

Reporting by Hakan Ceyhan Aydogan; Writing by Handan Kazanci

 

[Hindustani78]

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201706111054527873-russia-plane-upgrade/

Russia will modernize its Su-35S fighter jets with due account for their performance in the ongoing operation in Syria, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said. Aviation expert Viktor Pryadka told Sputnik what remains to be done to make the Su-35S “perfect for export.”

“We might even hold up its state trials until we are sure that all the defects have been fixed,” Borisov said during a visit to the Gagarin Aviation Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

He said that during the early stages of their use in Syria, the planes used to suck in small pebbles and small debris from the runway during takeoff, and also had problems with the searchlight and computer screens, all of which have since been addressed and rectified.

“Our pilots deployed in Syria say that this is one of the best jets in the world today in terms of flight and technical efficiency and also when it comes to the firing range of its onboard weapons,” Borisov stated.

The Su-35S is a modified version of the Su-35 fighter plane and is a 4++ generation combat aircraft.

“Since the start of its mass-scale production, the Su-35S’ systems have been brought to near perfection. However, with the experience of its combat use [in Syria] in mind, I guess that they want to bring its onboard fire control, homing and target acquisition systems up to speed,” Pryadka said.

He added that the Su-35S is “perfect for export,” provided that maximum attention is paid to its production quality.

Viktor Pryadka noted that the plane’s other onboard weapons could need a certain degree of fine-tuning.

 

[yavar]

Iran Hajj Qassem Soleimani in Syria-Iraq border حاج قاسم در مرز سوریه و عراق

 

[Banglar Bir]

Why Are We Attacking the Syrians Who Are Fighting ISIS?
June 12, 2017 at 6:55 am
Written by Ron Paul

Just when you thought our Syria policy could not get any worse, last week it did. The US military twice attacked Syrian government forces from a military base it illegally occupies inside Syria. According to the Pentagon, the attacks on Syrian government-backed forces were “defensive” because the Syrian fighters were approaching a US self-declared “de-confliction” zone inside Syria. The Syrian forces were pursuing ISIS in the area, but the US attacked anyway.

The US is training yet another rebel group fighting from that base, located near the border of Iraq at al-Tanf, and it claims that Syrian government forces pose a threat to the US military presence there. But the Pentagon has forgotten one thing: it has no authority to be in Syria in the first place! Neither the US Congress nor the UN Security Council has authorized a US military presence inside Syria.

So what gives the Trump Administration the right to set up military bases on foreign soil without the permission of that government? Why are we violating the sovereignty of Syria and attacking its military as they are fighting ISIS? Why does Washington claim that its primary mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS while taking military actions that benefit ISIS?

The Pentagon issued a statement saying its presence in Syria is necessary because the Syrian government is not strong enough to defeat ISIS on its own. But the “de-escalation zones” agreed upon by the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Turks have led to a reduction in fighting and a possible end to the six-year war. Even if true that the Syrian military is weakened, its weakness is due to six years of US-sponsored rebels fighting to overthrow it!

What is this really all about? Why does the US military occupy this base inside Syria? It’s partly about preventing the Syrians and Iraqis from working together to fight ISIS, but I think it’s mostly about Iran. If the Syrians and Iraqis join up to fight ISIS with the help of Iranian-allied Shia militia, the US believes it will strengthen Iran’s hand in the region. President Trump has recently returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he swore he would not allow that to happen.

But is this policy really in our interest, or are we just doing the bidding of our Middle East “allies,” who seem desperate for war with Iran? Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, including recently into moderate Asian Muslim countries like Indonesia. Iran does not. That is not to say that Iran is perfect, but does it make any sense to jump into the Sunni/Shia conflict on either side? The Syrians, along with their Russian and Iranian allies, are defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. As candidate Trump said, what’s so bad about that?

We were told that if the Syrian government was allowed to liberate Aleppo from al-Qaeda, Assad would kill thousands who were trapped there. But the opposite has happened: life is returning to normal in Aleppo. The Christian minority there celebrated Easter for the first time in several years. They are rebuilding. Can’t we finally just leave the Syrians alone?

When you get to the point where your actions are actually helping ISIS, whether intended or not, perhaps it’s time to stop. It’s past time for the US to abandon its dangerous and counterproductive Syria policy and just bring the troops home.

http://theantimedia.org/attacking-syrians-fighting-isis/

 

[mike2000 is back]

If it wasn't Americans there would be no conflicts in the ME and in larger extent even Islamic countries. Fake masonic 9/11, attack to Iraq, attack to Libya, bloody attack to Yemen, Taliban, Fsa, Nusra, ISIL etc are all made by Americans for security of israel. Whatever makes the US weaker is a good thing for security and humanity of the world.

https://archive.org/details/10ALQAEDATRAININGMANUELOperationCyclone1979179_201610

www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s

www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/how-america-made-isis_b_5751876.html

www.express.co.uk/news/world/737430/CIA-ISIS-Wikileaks-Carter-Cables-III-Julian-Assange

www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

LOL i'm not surprised coming from you. I already know your position and beliefs.

Why Are We Attacking the Syrians Who Are Fighting ISIS?
June 12, 2017 at 6:55 am
Written by Ron Paul

Just when you thought our Syria policy could not get any worse, last week it did. The US military twice attacked Syrian government forces from a military base it illegally occupies inside Syria. According to the Pentagon, the attacks on Syrian government-backed forces were “defensive” because the Syrian fighters were approaching a US self-declared “de-confliction” zone inside Syria. The Syrian forces were pursuing ISIS in the area, but the US attacked anyway.

The US is training yet another rebel group fighting from that base, located near the border of Iraq at al-Tanf, and it claims that Syrian government forces pose a threat to the US military presence there. But the Pentagon has forgotten one thing: it has no authority to be in Syria in the first place! Neither the US Congress nor the UN Security Council has authorized a US military presence inside Syria.

So what gives the Trump Administration the right to set up military bases on foreign soil without the permission of that government? Why are we violating the sovereignty of Syria and attacking its military as they are fighting ISIS? Why does Washington claim that its primary mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS while taking military actions that benefit ISIS?

The Pentagon issued a statement saying its presence in Syria is necessary because the Syrian government is not strong enough to defeat ISIS on its own. But the “de-escalation zones” agreed upon by the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Turks have led to a reduction in fighting and a possible end to the six-year war. Even if true that the Syrian military is weakened, its weakness is due to six years of US-sponsored rebels fighting to overthrow it!

What is this really all about? Why does the US military occupy this base inside Syria? It’s partly about preventing the Syrians and Iraqis from working together to fight ISIS, but I think it’s mostly about Iran. If the Syrians and Iraqis join up to fight ISIS with the help of Iranian-allied Shia militia, the US believes it will strengthen Iran’s hand in the region. President Trump has recently returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he swore he would not allow that to happen.

But is this policy really in our interest, or are we just doing the bidding of our Middle East “allies,” who seem desperate for war with Iran? Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, including recently into moderate Asian Muslim countries like Indonesia. Iran does not. That is not to say that Iran is perfect, but does it make any sense to jump into the Sunni/Shia conflict on either side? The Syrians, along with their Russian and Iranian allies, are defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. As candidate Trump said, what’s so bad about that?

We were told that if the Syrian government was allowed to liberate Aleppo from al-Qaeda, Assad would kill thousands who were trapped there. But the opposite has happened: life is returning to normal in Aleppo. The Christian minority there celebrated Easter for the first time in several years. They are rebuilding. Can’t we finally just leave the Syrians alone?

When you get to the point where your actions are actually helping ISIS, whether intended or not, perhaps it’s time to stop. It’s past time for the US to abandon its dangerous and counterproductive Syria policy and just bring the troops home.

http://theantimedia.org/attacking-syrians-fighting-isis/

Lol They were attacking U S backed forces who had just fought ISIS. In fact , funny enough, the vast majority of battles the Syrian military and it's Shiite militia's have fought have been against FSA and other reble groups, not ISIS. So this talk of ISIS focusing on ISIS is just another empty "talk". Lol

 

[500]

Putin's propaganda:

https://twitter.com/x/status/700653611215237127

https://twitter.com/x/status/874325442517454849

 

[Hamzay]

What's happening in Syria and the rest of Muslim world in particular is because we have the most powerful nations in the world who have fought two world wars and have the ability to destroy any country in an all out manner.

Americans started with Afghanistan. Afghanistan had nothing to bomb. It was never a threat to anyone. But it was struck to begin a tempo, to mentally prepare American people and the rest of world that America is enraged and aims to punish the bad guys.

Afghanistan paved the way to Iraq, the actual target which was messed up with by father Bush senior also. Iraq was already living under sanctions, with its weak military power, then why this war? Oil? Is oil what made you go to war? Nonsense, isn't it?

You wanted to unleash Iran to the Middle East. Iraq was the door for Iran to the Middle East. You placed Israel at one end of the region and you had Iran at the other end of it unleashed. Now you sit and watch the domino effect.

Iraq lost sectarian harmony; the Khomeni mindset of Iranians divided Arab Iraqis into Sunnis and Shias. Saudis reacted to this and so the struggle began between Arabs and Iranians. The effect was felt in Bahrain, and Yemen, and finally in 2012 it was Syria after the Arab spring which came from Europe and America.

I had once observed the New Middle East map which I think will be possibly drawn close to its actual form. Iraq and Syria will definitely give birth to a Kurd state.

Now the question is what the fate of Iraq and Syria will be finally.

Will Assad be removed? Will Syria have democracy and will it be handed over to the Sunni majority? Will Iran with all its sectarian might and Russia let it happen?

What will be the future of Iraq?

 

[Hamzay]

I do realise that the immediate target of the so called war on terror was Pakistan in 2001. Pakistan was the prime target because it had tested its nukes in 1998 despite Western attempts to prevent this from happening. 1999 Kargil War had proved that Pakistan was no more a soft target for India. And the only way Pakistan can be ruined was through a civil war which Syria, Iraq and Yemen are seeing now.

Pakistan was forced by the US to join her against the Taliban led Afghanistan which had close strategic alliance with Pakistan. The cost of American war on terror or 9/11 was Pakistan was to lose a strategic partner and that India was to arrive in Afghanistan as a continuous threat in Pakistan's tribal regions and Balochistan.

Pakistan was gifted one more enemy from within. The Jihadists who were enraged because of Pakistan's role in the war on terror. This rage allowed some Jihadists to unite with CIA, RAW and finally Afghan Intelligence NDS to give birth to terrorist TTP.

Pakistan saw a series of attacks which shook the very foundation of the country, but with the support from God and will of Pakistani people and their security forces, we recovered and survived.

 

[Hindustani78]

Interfax news
June 14, 2017

10:03
Terrorist fighter trained in Syria detained in Kyrgyzstan - State Committee for National Security

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1115016/middle-east

AMMAN, Jordan: The US military has moved a new truck-mounted, long-range rocket launcher from Jordan to a US base in Tanf, Syria near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, stepping up its presence in the area, two regional intelligence sources said on Wednesday.

They said the HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) were now in the desert garrison that has seen a build-up in military equipment in recent weeks as tensions escalate after the US-led coalition struck Iranian-backed forces to prevent them advancing toward the Tanf base.

“They have arrived now in Tanf and they are a significant boost to the US military presence there,” one senior intelligence source said, without elaborating, but adding that the HIMARS had already been deployed in northern Syria with US backed forces battling Daesh militants. (Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi)

 

[Banglar Bir]

The UN Just Accused the US of Killing 300 Civilians Since Last Week in Raqqa
June 15, 2017 at 3:16 am
Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

According to a U.N. Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating violations of international war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, the intensification of airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition has led to a “staggering loss of civilian life,” the Guardian reports.


The U.N. war crimes investigators found that since the acceleration of airstrikes in the Syrian city of Raqqa commenced last week, 300 civilians have already died. This statistic arguably makes Bashar al-Assad pale in comparison; Assad’s regime reportedly kills approximately 20-50 people in any given week.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
“We note in particular that the intensification of air strikes, which have paved the ground for an SDF advance in Raqqa, has resulted not only in staggering loss of civilian life, but has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes and becoming internally displaced,” Paulo Pinheiro, the chairman of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry told the human rights council in Geneva.


According to Karen Abuzayd, an American commissioner on the independent panel, the figure of 300 is based only on deaths caused by airstrikes. Therefore, the figure of civilian deaths caused by troops on the ground may ultimately higher.

As the Guardian also notes, speculation that the coalition has been using white phosphorous has already drawn strong condemnation.

Not surprisingly, this operation was conducted with full knowledge that there would be mass suffering for the civilian population. At the end of May of this year, Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis announced that the U.S. would be switching to so-called “annihilation tactics” against ISIS, stating:


“Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa, we are not going to allow them to do so…We are going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.”

According to Mattis, civilian deaths “are a fact of life in this sort of situation.” However, Mattis did add that the U.S. military would “do everything humanly possible consistent with military necessity, taking many chances to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.”

Mattis’ announcement that the U.S. would annihilate ISIS (and massacre civilians by the hundreds) is still somewhat dubious, considering video footage appears to have emerged of ISIS fighters fleeing the conflict in Raqqa safely despite the hundreds of bombs and white phosphorous loaded munitions U.S.-backed forces have been dropping over the city. It has been speculated that in reality, these ISIS fighters are being granted safe passage to put added pressure on the Syrian government, a longtime adversary of the United States.

Further, using a dangerous element like white phosphorous and burying over 300 civilians after approximately a week of fighting seems, on the face of it, to be nothing short of a blatant war crime. The Commission of Inquiry and the mainstream media may not use the term “war crime” outright, but that is surely an inference one can draw from their calculations.

If anything, it would appear the U.S. is annihilating civilians — and not much else.

The UN Just Accused the US of Killing 300 Civilians Since Last Week in Raqqa
June 15, 2017 at 3:16 am
Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

According to a U.N. Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating violations of international war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, the intensification of airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition has led to a “staggering loss of civilian life,” the Guardian reports.


The U.N. war crimes investigators found that since the acceleration of airstrikes in the Syrian city of Raqqa commenced last week, 300 civilians have already died. This statistic arguably makes Bashar al-Assad pale in comparison; Assad’s regime reportedly kills approximately 20-50 people in any given week.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
“We note in particular that the intensification of air strikes, which have paved the ground for an SDF advance in Raqqa, has resulted not only in staggering loss of civilian life, but has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes and becoming internally displaced,” Paulo Pinheiro, the chairman of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry told the human rights council in Geneva.


According to Karen Abuzayd, an American commissioner on the independent panel, the figure of 300 is based only on deaths caused by airstrikes. Therefore, the figure of civilian deaths caused by troops on the ground may ultimately higher.

As the Guardian also notes, speculation that the coalition has been using white phosphorous has already drawn strong condemnation.

Not surprisingly, this operation was conducted with full knowledge that there would be mass suffering for the civilian population. At the end of May of this year, Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis announced that the U.S. would be switching to so-called “annihilation tactics” against ISIS, stating:


“Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa, we are not going to allow them to do so…We are going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.”

According to Mattis, civilian deaths “are a fact of life in this sort of situation.” However, Mattis did add that the U.S. military would “do everything humanly possible consistent with military necessity, taking many chances to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.”

Mattis’ announcement that the U.S. would annihilate ISIS (and massacre civilians by the hundreds) is still somewhat dubious, considering video footage appears to have emerged of ISIS fighters fleeing the conflict in Raqqa safely despite the hundreds of bombs and white phosphorous loaded munitions U.S.-backed forces have been dropping over the city. It has been speculated that in reality, these ISIS fighters are being granted safe passage to put added pressure on the Syrian government, a longtime adversary of the United States.

Further, using a dangerous element like white phosphorous and burying over 300 civilians after approximately a week of fighting seems, on the face of it, to be nothing short of a blatant war crime. The Commission of Inquiry and the mainstream media may not use the term “war crime” outright, but that is surely an inference one can draw from their calculations.

If anything, it would appear the U.S. is annihilating civilians — and not much else.