Co-Chair Of SDF Political Wing Accuses Syrian Air Force Of Bombing US-backed Forces In Raqqah Countryside

Donate

Ilham Ehmed, a co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council, (a political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF]) has accused the Syrian Air Force of carrying out airstrikes on the US-backed forces in the countryside of Raqqah.

The accusation followed unconfirmed reports that SDF units were bombed near Tabqa and Raqqah cities in the province of Raqqah by unknown aircraft last night. So far reports have not been confirmed by photos or videos.

The SDF press center has also not released a statement on the allegations. Some experts believe that this may indicate a start of a large-scale US-backed media campaign aimed at preventing any kind of cooperation between the Syrian government and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, which are a core of the SDF.

Meanwhile, the Syrian state-run news agency SANA reported that the Syrian Air Force carried out airstrikes on ISIS targets in the province of Raqqah.

“Air Force of the Army on Thursday destroyed positions and armored vehicles of ISIS terrorists in the villages of Deir Mleihan, Debsi Afnan and al-Qadisiya in the western countryside of Raqqa eastern province.

A military source told SANA that dozens of the terrorists were either killed or injured and their vehicles were destroyed in the Army’s strikes.

The source added that several vehicles of ISIS terrorists were also destroyed in the sorties of the army on ISIS positions to the east of Wahiba Kabira village in the eastern countryside of Aleppo near the administrative borders with Raqqa,” the article reads.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Wahid Algiers

    The starting shot to devide SAA and SDF?

    • Ronald

      Just the Americans trying to stir it up , if you look at a map the Kurds have taken up to the highway , easy to go around for any army . Don’t think the Syrian Air Force has night targeting capabilities .

      • John Whitehot

        The IAF has it as well, they would not mind performing an airstrike here and there with the americans willingfully taking responsibility. That would mean that USrael is in a much worse position that they are trying to appear, and that they already have settled for just having a roadblock at the border to prevent weapons supplies to Hezbollahs in Lebanon.

        • “That would mean that USrael is in a much worse position that they are trying to appear”
          ————-
          I think the situation (regarding the dollar’s global hegemony) is getting very serious for them – they’re also doing a lot of unheard of penny-pinching these days….. Insisting NATO members pay their full fee and suggestions of increasing it, backing out the Climate Accord, backing out of trade deals, threatening Germany with 35% surcharges etc etc.

          They’re also well-positioned now to close down major trade routes – the South China Sea, Hormuz and the land route between Asia/Eurasia and Europe. (Officially they’re there to “keep open” sea routes China + Iran certainly wouldn’t want closed and to “prevent Russian aggression.”)

          With new massive trade deals and BRICS AIIB SCO CIS etc all going on now in own currencies, gold, rubles and remimbi (anything but the USD) it can’t be long before they can no longer service the interest on that massive debt of theirs…… and …. “all wars are bankers wars”….

          …Japan bombed Pearl Harbour because the Allies blockaded them and cut off all access to oil/energy…. left Japan in a do or die situation.

  • Dmitry Saloff

    Possible full-scale conflict between SAA and SDF would be the most dumb thing ever, delaying every opportunity for peace in Syria for decades. I hope that both forces will not succumb to any provocations and remain being at least non-hostile to each other (I do not even ask for an alliance tho).

    • Mountains

      The SAA will not settle with Raqqah and its surrounding areas being in controll of US-backed forces. It’s bound to happen and inevitable

      • Dustil schmit

        You prefer ISIS))

        • Mountains

          ISIS will vacate these areas and it will fall to US-Kurds hands and never to be returned back to Assad because they view him marely as a lowly warlord

          • John Mason

            Explains why Saddam was busy annihilating the Kurds. What makes it worse is that Assad gave the Kurds citizenship, their own country. Kurds are traitors, period.

        • Ronald

          Like the USAF ( or Israeli ) Mountains would love to stir it up between the Kurds and the SAA . SDF is the American controlled overlords of the various Kurdish groups fighting ISIS at Raqqa . The Americans would like to prevent any cooperation between Kurds and SAA . They certainly do not want SAA rumbling down the river road , and thereby the Syrian government reclaiming its oil wells. That road has not been mined , as it is the escape route for ISIS from Raqqa .

    • You’re suggesting the Syrian govt should cede control of some of its country to the US (ie. ENEMY) and their proxies?

      WHY?
      What kind of peace would that provide for Syria?

      • John Mason

        Not wrong. Some people are so placid, naive and lack courage that if you set up camp in their back yard they will actually welcome you after you told them that you are taking their property. Assad should just bomb the crap out of the US and coalition, Kurds (will make Erdogan happy), SDF and any unauthorized forces on Syrian soil.

        • Agreed – the day can’t come soon enough.

          I guess those Ayrabs are REALLY getting upset with that your yard is my backyard stuff….

      • Dmitry Saloff

        Not the US but to the fellow Kurdish countrymen. They weren’t hostile to each other for a long time and I think SAA and SDF can arrange some kind of agreement about the future of Northern Syria. At least Kurds didn’t plan to declare independence, so there is no need to make Syrian conflict worse than it already is.

  • Mountains

    Unknown aircraft my ass. The SAA bombed the Kurds due to the block on Raqqah road thats what is annoying them.

    In My honest opinion SAA is ready for full scale war on everybody in Syria that is not them. They got over-confident which could be the end for them.

    • The end for whom?
      Syria and the SAA? …. Or the foreign insurgents overrunning the country?

    • John Whitehot

      lololololol

  • Manuel Flores Escobar

    SDF has a branch of FSA inside there!…therefore SAF has attacked them in retalion of US airstrike!

  • Ronald

    Who would benefit from an unknown night attack . The US who have ” a media campaign aimed at preventing cooperation between the Syrian government and the Kurdish ” .
    Smells of hidden deceit .

  • Drinas

    Good. Burn these traitors.

  • goingbrokes

    False flag. There has been no serious hostility between Syrian govt and the Kurds. US is starting to fear that they will remain friends. So drop a bomb on the Kurds to stir things up a bit. Stirring hostility is the stock in trade of some of the out-of-control brass addicted to violence and used to acting as MIC puppets. The disarray at the top doesn’t help. No one in Pentagon trusts Trump, hell they probably don’t even talk to him anymore. So the chain of command is shot and the local commanders just make it up as they go along. Hey, now we are just defending ourselves – hey, now we are stirring up trouble. There is no overarching strategy or leadership, just a mean and nasty mentality without any real political goals. Most of the US commanders don’t even understand the situation, the Special Forces are reportedly demoralised and on the point of rebellion (don’t forget in Vietnam they started shooting their officers) for being made to clean up after the pathetic insurgents mess up yet another situation. Yep, look no further, it is a US bomb for sure, but no one will ever find out why it was dropped, because it was just a stupid idea.

    • John Whitehot

      there are no moderators, Southfronts uses DIsqus software for comments, and it’s not moderated by anyone.
      better start realizing who’s trolling and who’s not.

      • They still have a serious moderator problem.
        That post is gone – and it offered a valid point of view.

        • John Whitehot

          I agree that the post was interesting.

          But don’t be quick in making up your mind, because normally the result you get is the one intended, and what normally isn’t understood is that whoever pull the strings has a plan that goes beyond the single post.

          One thing is certain, this site is FULL of false “supporters of Syria” trying to gain legitimacy in the eyes of those who are sympathetic to Assad and Russia. Of course, their plan is to use that legitimacy later against those people and as a mean to demoralize the Syrian military and its allies.

          • You agree it was interesting?
            So you agree it offered a valid point of view?

            Or do you think the Americans really can’t identify a plane with satellite and radar? I know this… they brag their satellite imagery can read the warning label on a box of smokes, … radar outlines the shape of the plane – ie. what plane – and that’s pretty much who’s flying it.

            Old mig – Syria
            New Su – Russia
            Anything else – coalition.

            They also know where the plane came from – and where it returned to. Unless you think they didn’t bother to track a plane that struck them?

            I also know this.
            Southfront deleted a pertinent post with a valid point of view – the reasons for doing so are IRRELEVANT. You did it – you censored free speech.

            So now I’m wondering – are you going to delete me too?
            Or just …. shadow ban me?…

            Yes, I know about shadow banning – even if the rest of your commenters don’t.

          • John Whitehot

            radar DOES NOT outline the shape of a plane, the output of a radar return on a screen is a blip normally directly proportional to the intensity of the energy reflected by the target.

            Also, answer this: even if you knew the shape of a plane (and you’d need to directly see it at some point), how would you discriminate a Turkish F-16 from a US or Israeli one? A Saudi F-15 from a US or Israeli one?

            The only way is to analyse their tracks, point of origins, entrances into airspaces and so on, but even then, you hardly have a 100% likeness, especially if the enemy is not the dumbest bastard on earth and does not collaborate being tracked and identified, which is what ALL the airforces today do.

            And about shadow banning, I wouldn’t get too shaky about that. You get the doubt, just use your smartphone over a different connection and see if your comments appear.

          • “how would you discriminate a Turkish F-16 from a US or Israeli one? A Saudi F-15 from a US or Israeli one?”
            —————————-
            Uh huh? And which of those is “pro-Syrian forces?”
            Yah see – if it wasn’t a Mig or a Su then it was US-led Coalition and if it was Coalition then it was US-Approved – not rocket science.

            Now maybe nobody tracked the plane’s arrival but don’t even try to suggest that if a Syrian or Russian plane struck US-led forces that the US didn’t at the very least track it back to where it returned. Gotta land – so did it land at a Syria or Coalition base? Radar’s useful there I believe ‘cos a Syrian or Russian plane won’t land at a US base or vv.

            As for shadow banning, it has got to be about the nastiest sneakiest form of internet forum censorship devised. If I found I was shadow banned, I’d leave the site for good – and spread the word wherever else I went.

          • John Whitehot

            the answer was pretty much technical – I did not imply the nationality of the aircraft – but just state that you can’t identify an airplane without direct observation in most cases.

            Normally it’s a exclusion process: you spot the plane on the radar, or other sensors, and then start excluding what you are sure it is not based on known parameters. In the end, you still have some doubts: “so, it’s a F-16 approaching from the South. Is it Israeli, Jordanian or US? What kind of weapons it has?”, so you decide whether to intercept it or not.

            And about the plane you mention, I never suggested it was Russian or Syrian, pretty much the contrary – in fact I’ve been the first to write “what if it’s a US or Turkish plane on a stir up mission?” in the comments.

          • “this site is FULL of false “supporters of Syria” trying to gain
            legitimacy in the eyes of those who are sympathetic to Assad and Russia. Of course, their plan is to use that legitimacy later against those people and as a mean to demoralize the Syrian military and its allies.”

            ————————
            You’re lost me there – what do you mean?
            I am a “supporter of Syria,”
            If I was a “false supporter of Syria” on this website – what legitimacy would I gain here and how would I use that legitimacy to demoralise the Syrian army, Iran and Russia? (Her allies,) Oh, and Hezbollah.

            That doesn’t make sense to me – what are you saying?
            Because surely you aren’t saying that a comment giving a reverse pov from what the commenter normally writes – is going to demoralise Syria, Russia and Iran?

          • John Whitehot

            I should have used the word “Credibility” instead of “legitimacy”.

            If in your posts you show you’re being “emotionally aligned” with a certain part of the readers, you basically get them to listen to you in a much different and positive way than they’ll perceive if you were critic to their views and positions.

            So basically, they present theirselves as Assad supporters and gain “sympathy”, but then put words and concepts in their posts that are the opposite.

            It’s a rhetoric stunt that can be defined “being formally on one side but substantially on the other”

            There are other tricks as well.
            One tries to exploit peer pressure (“If so many people like me thinks this way, I must be wrong somewhere”). It’s pretty much proven by the massive quantity of users saying the same exact things with (not so) different words.

            Propaganda and aimed PsyOps employ tricks on the basis of their intended targets, which can be desumed 1)by the general subject of discussion and 2)by analysing the aforementioned tricks (a device that is effective on a person, or class of persons, is not effective on someone else).

            I’d like to be more specific and deep, but time and space are limited.

      • eric zweistein

        Then who is the moderator in above example? Disqus itself? That would make it way worth.

        • John Whitehot

          I don’t know.
          Maybe a photoshopped pic?
          Go to disqus.com and read the terms of usage.

          “No moderators” is at the top of the list.

          I’m not saying you are not telling the truth, maybe disqus removed it after somebody reported the post.

          • No, I did NOT photoshop the pic.
            It was screen dump. Plain and simple “Print Screen and Control+Print Screen.” That’s it.

            If Disqus is moderating your site you should take that up with them – I’m pretty sure it’s against the T+Cs for them to do so because you are an independent site using their feature – not a page built on Disqus.

      • EL ZORRO

        Disqus is in cahoots with the DEEP STATE.

        • I don’t think so …. I’ve read LOTS of anti-Deep States comments in comment sections using Disqus – and I write a few of them too.

          Of course, now that they’ve introduced “shadow banning” I suppose I should check that they are really there….. haven’t yet felt the need tho’. (If you get a reply you aren’t shadow-banned.)

      • I am not a troll – just a person who posts what I find and think when I feel like it AND I see NOTHING in Goingbrokes removed comment to warrant his being accused of trolling.

        You say Southfront didn’t do this
        Disqus says they don’t do this.

        But someone who has access to do it removed that post.
        It was here, it’s now gone, it’s not come back.

        •If you folk didn’t do this – you have an uncontrolled censorship problem!
        You’re a nice site and nice sites on this subject are rare.
        I for one would appreciate it if you’d look into and fix the problem instead of just denying you did it.
        —————————-
        Unphotoshopped SCREEN DUMP from Disqus.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e700f9a6cc2228022a5e5a04969856610b16db76a78dd4b6606580504229967.jpg

        • John Whitehot

          wait a sec.
          I did not say Southfront did not do this.

          You are correct on SF and Disqus, I was led to believe that Disqus boards aren’t moderated after cursory reading the ToS page, but actually it is that Disqus does not moderate the single websites.

          Hence you’re right, Southfront is responsible for removing messages and thinking about it, operators of Disqus using websites have a “MOD” label near their nickname.

  • John Whitehot

    it wouldn’t surprise me if they have been bombed by a US (or turkish) plane and they are now trying to convince SDF soldiers that Assad is their enemy.

  • how I feel sorry for the SDF, really.
    I suggest to the “unknown aircrafts” to make a second run so we get some good photo.

    • John Whitehot

      lol.

  • John Mason

    SDF appears to be under some illusion that they own Syria, they better think again.

  • TS

    Russians haven’t commented about airspace violations, but have said that there have been violations of agreed on rules . ..https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201705051053321228-russia-syria-safe-zones/

  • Rodger

    The Kurds are just taking these lands to have some bargaining chips to give to Assad. If the US think they can make a lasting Kurd-Arab alliance against Assad they are wrong, again.