A growing number of airstrikes against the Nusra Front-controlled Idlib Province in northwestern Syria have been reported throughout the weekend, with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting that 24 civilians were killed and around 70 others wounded in the past 24 hours.
The deaths were the result of a number of different attacks across the province, with several different areas targeted, including Jisr al-Shughour and Maraat al-Numaan, the main towns along Idlib’s border with neighboring Latakia, which are commonly targeted with an eye toward an eventual military offensive into the province.
The majority of Nusra’s territory, Idlib has long been expected to be a military offensive target for Syrian ground troops, though Nusra’s advances into Aleppo Province have shifted the focus further east. This has meant continued airstrikes against Idlib, however, with an eye toward keeping Nusra forces there from being able to reinforce Aleppo.
Airstrikes against the towns tend to result in a lot of civilian casualties, likely reflecting the lack of intelligence on what is being targeted around such areas. Still, Syria and Russia have felt obliged to launch strikes as fighting with Nusra continues, even if they’re not always clear what they’re aiming at.
Syrian Observatory is not a reliable source of information. It also does not sound credible that Syria does not have information about the targets. Idlib area is at present populated by many groups; other smaller groups have migrated there, and Government actually provided them with transport. Many of them were foreign fighters. With this much infusion of bused-in militants from various areas in Syria, as well as foreign countries — it is very much likely that Syria has a very good knowledge of who is there, and where are their assets. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record — taking the word of a one man show in Coventry for reliable information — is not serious. Naturally that media is anxious to get some information — but this is not a way to do it. Unfortunately, there is no good alternative to just being there. Reporters may just have to leave their offices, and make attempt at covering various aspects of this — by now — a very complex conflict. The amount of groups proliferated over the years, and as the safety and security dwindled — many areas ended with their own security, often ending up in conflicts with neighbors. As the fortunes of Syrian Government have improved, there are now “Reconciliation agreements”, allowing Syrian government to mediate, and have the communities sign the agreement, restoring the policing of the state. So far, over 500 such agreements have been signed. It is a shame that the global media is relying on a very biased source, one without truthfully reliable information — instead of doing the old fashioned reporting from the ground. ` It also would not hurt to take news from reporters that are there, knowing fully that all information may be faulty, biased or just plain wrong and incomplete. The problem is — if it is not coming from “western” sources, or somebody “approved’ like the notoriously biased Observatory — it is not accepted. The control of media sources deprives the public of having more information at the disposal. Time may come when we should be able to read in US media, what has been published in media around the globe, not only the “approved’ sources. Example is Turkish media. There are sources of information there about the role of Turkish Army in both Syria and Iraq. Granted, it is written with Turkish audience in mind, as well as global audience in all editions in English. All in all, still the picture may be more complete by seeing everybody’s perspective, bias, interests. Observatory is worse than Government funded propaganda — it is a special interest propaganda, the interests that profit from war, and intend to control the information for desired effect. So it is with Observatory — it is still good to know not so much what they say, but what they DO NOT say.
I would not bet anything that Syria does not know what is going on in Idlib. Somewhere else, perhaps. I would buy it — not in Idlib.
“Syrian Observatory is not a reliable source of information.”
It’s in the nature of media in general, and war-oriented media specifically, that there’s no such thing as “a reliable source of information.” Every report WILL be biased toward the side the reporter and/or reporting organization favors.
Based on the comment complaints every time the Observatory is cited as a source at Antiwar.com, I complained up the organizational chain some time back, and the answer I got was along these lines: Obviously the Observatory has its own perspective and its own line, and yes, it is run by a guy in England, but it does also have actual sources on the ground in Syria and does produce information that’s probably as reliable as e.g. sourcing from the regimes in Washington and Moscow and Damascus, so we’re going to keep using it when applicable.
“It also does not sound credible that Syria does not have information about the targets.”
Well, SOMEONE in Syria (population ~18.5 million) probably has information about any particular target. If you’re referring to regime actors in Syria, they may or may not have reliable information about any particular target and if they do they may or may not be inclined to share that information, and if they are inclined to share it they may decide to share it accurately (if sharing it accurately serves their goals) or not (if sharing it accurately does not serve their goals).
It’s hard to extract truth from the propaganda — and the reports coming out of Syria are almost certainly ALL propaganda. But we’ll continue to do our best.
The Syrian gov has plenty of ground-based intel on what they are hitting. There are many Syrians in Idlib that DO NOT support the AQ-affiliated al-nusra terrorists, and they are only to willing to inform on the filthy saudi/Qatari-backed wahabbi rats in their midst.
You forgot that Al Nusra was originally funded by the United States as well! Lets be fair when we give blame here lets not forget that it was the United States attempts at regime change that caused the mess in the first place!
Oct 22, 2016 Results of Russian Military Campaign in Syria: Sep. 30, 2015 – Oct. 20, 2016
https://youtu.be/ebNBqvmt8QI