A June airstrike by Russian warplanes against a rebel base near al-Tanf in southern Syria came within just 24 hours of hitting British special forces deployed in the country, US officials are now claiming. The base is said to have belonged to the New Syrian Army, a relatively minor rebel faction that receives US and British backing and operates out of Jordan.
The Pentagon has been harping on about this incident for over a month now, claiming a “dramatic showdown” with Russian jets in the skies over the base, which ended when the US planes left to refuel, and Russia bombed the base, killing four rebels.
The claim now is that 20 British SAS fighters were at the base the previous day, and that the attack amounted to Russian “bullying” to try to get the West to cooperate more. Russia insists that they have no idea who is or isn’t a US ally at any given time, and suggested the US provide an up-to-date map of who they’re supporting at any given time so they don’t bomb those people.
The area around Tanf also has active Nusra and ISIS forces, so it is unsurprising that Russia would be keen to target a significant rebel base there, particularly since Nusra is almost always embedded in any given rebel base, even the nominally “moderate” ones.
While the British government hasn’t discussed their presence in Syria, the New Syrian Army has publicized the fact that British forces “frequently” enter Syria from neighboring Jordan to coordinate with them. The New Syrian Army still controls the Tanf crossing into Iraq, but a recent offensive against the more valuable al-Bukamal crossing ended in the group being soundly defeated by ISIS, to the point there were doubts if they’d ever fully recover.
WTF are British soldiers doing in Syria, or US soldiers, for that matter? Were they invited by the internationally recognized government? If not, they are terrorists.
Words mean things. “Terrorist” does not mean “uninvited by the internationally recognized government.”
How about “invader”. Will that do?
How about “war criminal”?
Words mean things indeed, and “war is the ultimate crime” has a pretty clear meaning. As do those words in the UN Charter — to which both the US and the UK are signatories — which say no war or threats of war except as specified in the charter. Do the words “war of regime change by foreign-sponsored mercenary forces” — the case in Syria — fall within the meaning of “aggressive war”, or no?
I’m unaware of any consistently used definition of “terrorist” so, IMO, the word doesn’t mean anything unless the person using it defines it first.
MoA’s analysis of this event is the best I’ve seen:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/06/syria-another-russian-surprise-ends-kerrys-delaying-tactic.html
And subsequent events lend support to MoA’s analysis.
Too bad they didn’t attack the day before.
Sorry British and U.S. You do not have permission from the govt of Syria to setup a base on their territory so this is your fault. Also, if the Assad govt hasn’t invited your forces into their country, then you are there illegally so don’t cry when bad things happen.