US shoots down pro-Syrian regime drone firing on coalition forces: official

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Jun 8, 2017.

Tags:
  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    And we're off! Escalating to a shooting war against Syria will not end well.

    https://english.alarabiya.net/en/Ne...ompts-US-strikes-at-Syrian-regime-forces.html

     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
  3. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #3
    Not quite the same. They've been going up against ISIS. This was directly against Syria.
     
  4. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #4
    What happened in the article sounds like self defense. They were fired upon, they destroyed what was firing upon them.

    What aircraft is that? Almost looks like F14.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Macky-Mac, Jun 8, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017

    Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #5
    it does seem that the "deconfliction zone in southern Syria" mentioned in the article, this is near where the borders of Syria, Jordan and Iraq come together, has recently been the site of several confrontations between US forces and various forces that are at least vaguely on the Assad side. There's said to be a US base inside Syria in the vicinity of al-Tanf, a location mentioned in the OP's link

    commentary from al-Monitor;

    "..."Take note," a senior Israeli security official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "Just this week, the United States attacked a convoy of Syrian forces in that sensitive region. It happened at the exact same time as events were unfolding in the Persian Gulf, when the Sunni states broke diplomatic relations with Qatar. This was the second American attack in that same region in the past two weeks. It is a much more dramatic move than it seems from the outside, yet it is passing beneath the radar. It represents a full-force change in US policy in the Middle East."

    The source added that the Americans went "over the heads" of the Russians and made it clear that they have no intention of allowing the Shiite axis to dominate the vital border region between the three countries. It seems as though the United States intends to block the establishment of Shiite territorial continuity from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, even if it requires force. Jordan's stability, Israeli interests and most of all Saudi fears of Iran have become the foundations of US foreign policy...."


    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...nald-trump-alliance-terror.html#ixzz4jRmgTj6G

    There seems to be a bit of testing of intentions going on.

    from another al-Monitor article;

    "...Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed May 4 in Astana to create four de-escalation zones in Syria, including one in southern Syria. The United States was not part of the agreement, but its participation in the Amman talks signals its eagerness to be part of an understanding with Moscow to set up security arrangements in southern Syria, primarily to protect Jordanian and Israeli interests. The United States, along with other Western nations, maintains military presence at al-Tanf base in southeast Syria close to the borders with Iraq and Jordan. The base is used to train and supply US-backed rebel groups, collectively known as the New Syrian Army, which is comprised mainly of local tribes in the Badia region.

    Al-Tanf is located on the Damascus-Baghdad highway and therein lies its strategic value for the United States, the Damascus regime and Iran. On May 18, coalition planes hit a pro-Syrian government convoy after firing warning shots and when Russia failed to dissuade those troops from moving into the de-conflicted area near al-Tanf. Following that incident, the United States imposed a 55-kilometer (34-mile) safe zone around the base and boosted its combat power....."



    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...ia-safe-zones-border-syria.html#ixzz4jRpNPxtg
     
  6. HEK macrumors 68030

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #6
    Our troops fired upon, even only advisors, shoot back, take em out. No ifs, ands, or buts. Should or should not be there is irrelevant. I can see both sides in a negotiation. I may carry some liberal ideas. But regardless, our troops should always defend themselves.

    And defense with overwhelming force is always best. Takining out the drone is minimum. If we can figure out where command and control site is, that should be taken out as well. One may argue about being there, side we are on, confusion of war, etc. but nothing sets the tone and reduces future attack like a swift overwhelming response.

    Once the shooting starts, makes no sense to have overwhelming force and not use it. Same reason this liberal carries concealed everywhere I legally can, at all times. Never had to use it, hope I never will. But I won't be wishing I had my weapon if I ever need it.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 8, 2017 ---
    Not F-14, single vertical stabilizer. Is swing wing. Sukhoi Su-24 or Mig 23, might also be Tornado but can't see inlet configuration. Based on horizontal stabilizer and wing tip configuration best guess is Mig 23.
     
  7. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #7
    They weren't fired upon or attacked in any way, according to the article. Not sure how you get self defence out of that. And the column of trucks that were taken out didn't fire on them, either. That makes us the aggressor.
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Read the quote in your OP.

    "The United States shot down a pro-Syrian regime armed drone that was attacking US-led coalition forces in Syria on Thursday, a US military spokesman said, the first time the regime had attacked coalition forces."
     
  9. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #9
    Maybe you can clarify your point because I'm not getting it.

     
  10. HEK macrumors 68030

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #10
    You ever been in a war situation. They were given fair warning, they continued to approach. You don't mess around, lawyering will not save your life. An oops over dead enemy way better than damn I wish I had shot. Hostile troops with weapons told to stop approaching become targets with another step. Simple effective, hopefully you never are in such a position, it's not fun. As for the drone, take potentially hostile drones out on first sight. It's only hardware.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11

    one thing's for sure......if Trump is sending troops into Syria and positioning them along the most desirable road for Iran to send "stuff" to Hezbollah, then sooner or later somebody is going to be shooting at them, so certainly they're going to need to defend themselves

    (that photo was captioned as a file image, so it could be just an old photo that was handy......could it be an old picture of an F-111?)
     
  12. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #12
    Nothing cuter than a MIA OP.

    Wacka Wack Wacka
     
  13. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #13
    Looks like a 111. I knew it wasn't a Tomcat because it only had one tail wing or whatever it is it called. My aviation knowledge comes from Top Gun and Iron Eagle.:D
     
  14. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #14
    It says "US led coalition forces". That does not mean any US soldiers were present. And it covers everyone from the Kurds to Al-Quaida. While the US forces may owe some fire to them, they were nit necessarily US forces that were fired upon.
     
  15. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #15

    Thanks for confirming what I thought you were thinking.

    So given your explanation you have no idea whether US personnel WAS NOT present. Therefore these are not true either.

    So now I wonder what this thread is about?
     
  16. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #16
    They were inverted.
     
  17. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #17
    In this article and others on the same issue they are reasonably clear that there were no US forces being fired on. IN another article on the drone they actually bring up the fact that whatever the drone fired was a dud and did not even cause any damage or go off. And the column of Syrians that was fired on were just going from point A to B, they were not engaged in combat with any US backed or US forces.
     
  18. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #18
    It seems you've gathered more information since your third post where you said according to the article in your original post US troops were not fired on. That simply isnt true. As you later posted it merely said US led coalition troops which means: US troops MAY HAVE or MAY NOT HAVE been not involved.

    I'm glad you researched your topic more and reported back with an update.
     
  19. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #19
    No drone this time. Now we've shot down an actual plane.

    U.S. Jet Shoots Down Syrian Warplane

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/...-syria-missile-launch-islamic-state.html?_r=0
     
  20. HEK macrumors 68030

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #20
  21. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #21
    Yay, let's take another step closer to WWIII. Then again we are going to either have to get a lot more terrorists mad at us when we abandon our terrorists after defeating ISIS or get involved in a shooting war with the Syrian regime and the Russians sooner or later. Assad may be content to mostly focus on ISIS now, but once they lose he is going to want to take his country back from the rest of the terrorists.
     
  22. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    thanks Oclueless for getting the U.S into Syria.
     
  23. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    We had already broken Iraq and had to take responsibility for our mess there that predated Obama. Should we have respected a border that ISIS had overrun and ignored? That would have been a recipe for disaster.
     
  24. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    ISIS :rolleyes: o-stupid did not go to Syria to take on ISIS, he armed rebels working against Assad..wake up.
     
  25. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007

Share This Page