US And ISIS: Unannounced Allies Against Syrian Arab Army

Donate

US And ISIS: Unannounced Allies Against Syrian Arab Army

Click to see the full-size map

The article is provided by Islamic World News exclusively for SouthFront

Less than a year ago, US-led coalition warplanes bombed Syrian Arab Army positions in the vicinity of Deir Ezzor city and its airbase which are both besieged by ISIS over 3 years.

With the death of the city’s defenders, ISIS easily took control of a territory that located close to the airbase.

ISIS had conducted over than 100 suicide attacks against government forces defending the airbase and the part of the city that still under the control of the Syrian forces but was unable to overrun the SAA defense.

However, the US airstrikes dramatically changed the situation in the area. Over 80 elite SAA troops that resisted ISIS for years died in that attack.

The US-led coalition said that it was a mistake.

This claim was ridiculous. If they in that same day searched the phrase “the updated Syrian civil war map” in Google, they would’ve easily found the location of the government forces and avoided comitting such a mistake.

“Accident airstrikes” on SAA targets when the frontline does not change for a very long time is hardly possible.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Dejan

    Those brave SAA soldiers died with honor, USA plan to conquer DZ failed. Respect to Syrian soldiers

    • Justin Ryan

      Absolutely!

  • A clear and concise article. The facts are indisputable by anyone with a brain. *Hopefully*, Trump has adjusted US policy to reverse Obama’s pro-terrorist agenda.

    • Turbofan

      It still baffles me as to how people still believe that Obama was a great president. I personally consider Obama to be worse that Bush..

      • heydad

        they are all deep state goons. All of them since Eisenhower are simply figure heads to distract people from the swamp that runs this country into one conflict after another to fund the military economy that has projected us to the top of the globe. And once you get there only hell can bring you back down, hell for everyone.

        • Daniel

          Well one of them started to realise what was going on after a while.

          • John Wallace

            and he got a bullet ( or two ) for his trouble.

  • Serious

    And then, they want you to cry when CIA made false flags in Europe and USA ? XD.

  • Daniel

    It is so obvious what happened here. The US normally didn’t bomb ISIS in DE city and all of sudden they do (or pretend to mean to do) and then never again.

  • Barba_Papa

    Any other country and air force this article would have a point. But on the other hand we’re talking about the US Air Force here. And the US Chair Force has a long and proud history of hitting everybody. And that includes their allies, friendlies, civilians and their own.

    So the chance exists that it was Chair Force incompetence. They’re known for it. There’s a reason why the US Army prefers to rely on its own choppers for close air support and why the Marines have their own air force.

    • Why didn’t they answer the phone?

  • Manuel Flores Escobar

    Not only that atttack in DZ…after that.. USA attacked Shayrat air base to deter SAA advance in Homs vs ISIS….US backed terrorist and US air force launched attacks from US Al Tanf base and Jordan air bases to deter SAA advance to DZ along Iraq border and cut reinforcement from Iraq!…so USA is a good ally of ISIS vs SAA!..thats why ISIS in gratitude withdraw thousands of terrorist from Raqqa!

  • Ron Chandler

    The planes that strafed the SAA position (and returned to finish off the wounded) were of the Royal Australian Air Force, according to Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (ex-Goldman Sachs), who claimed it was a mistake. He lied. The Russian coordination centre attempted immediately to warn the ”Coalition” its air force were attacking SAA positions. The ”Coalition” did not picjk up the phone. For over 2 hours.
    Further, ISIS infantry swarmed the SAA lines WITHIN TEN MINUTES of the RAAF’s departure. Syrian Intelligence has logs of radio traffic between Coalition command and ISIS formations.
    The Royal Australian Air Force is ISIS close air support. I am Australian, and deeply mortified (but not surprised) by this infamous crime.

    • goingbrokes

      Actually, as to the planes doing the strafing and bombing, SAA soldiers on the ground reported them as being two F-16s and two A-10s, neither of which is operated by the Australians. Both Denmark and Australia claimed, immediately after the attack to have taken part in it. To me it seemed a move to shift the blame more evenly amongst the coalition for political reasons. There has been speculation that the Australian contribution was a Hawkeye plane (not sighted from ground), but it all smacks of blame shifting to me and is probably BS.
      I agree with the other facts that you lay out of this heinous attack which could not possibly be a mistake. Further subterfuge was that USAF filed an attack plan through the co-operation channel which indicated to Russians/Syrians targets that were about 10 miles south of Mt Tardah, which would have been ISIS targets. But as we know, that was never the intention. The coalition really exists to give US ambitions international legitimacy and it should be disbanded now.

      • Shades of Kunduz where the Afghan govt at first accepted responsibility for the American “mistake.”

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        One report I heard described them as 2 F-18’s and 2 A-10’s,know the US had then claimed they were flying F-16’s that day.

    • Graeme Rymill

      There were 37 strikes over a period of an hour. That gives ISIS 70 minutes (60 plus your ten minutes) to organise an impromptu attack. This is plenty of time without requiring any US – ISIS collusion. If you were watching your opponents get hammered for an hour by bombs and missiles would you not consider an immediate attack to take advantage of the situation? Of course you would.

      • Russell A Wilson

        Not a bad assesment but I think the coalition and isis attacks were planned from beginning. Why would they attack if there was no planned outcome?

        • Graeme Rymill

          The planned outcome for ISIS was to seize key terrain that dominated large areas of Deir Ezzor. They didn’t need the coalition to tell them these hills were important. They saw the opportunity and took it.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            The coordination is obvious since they were amassing long before the attack and the reports of the us fighters (F-18) jets and A 10’s does make sense. Think only the US was flying in Syrian Airspace around Deir ezzoir city that day. Canada ended it’s air strikes in Syria so couldn’t have been them flying them and Aussies and Danes only fly F-16’s.

          • Graeme Rymill

            A typical Woolpuller reply! Lots of “facts” and not a single source to back them up. Where do you get this stuff from?

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            These are all available for anyone to look at and were reported in the media and online.

          • Graeme Rymill

            How convenient for you not to be able to have any sources to back up your claims. If Woolpuller says it, it must be true! Apologies for not accepting your “facts”….. however straight away doubts arise…..the Danes fly F-16s not F-18s. Perhaps your ISIS amassing 6-8 hours beforehand is also mis-remembered?

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Canada reported on the day of refueling near Deir ezzor of the US fighters and Reapers and refueling Danish and Australian forces attacking Aleppo that day. The 6-8 hours was reported by Syrian Military sources. The reason why I excluded the Danish as they are easy to Identify with large lettering E and ET along the Canopy. These Identify the only 2 eskadrilles or squadrons to fly them 727 and 730. They are F-16 A ,B modified just upgrades on old F-16’s.

            Australians said they dropped them according to US coordinates which were nowhere the ones given to the Russians , you can tell every word
            and phrase he tried emphasizing as this was unintentional , He knew it wasn’t and was pissed at being misled, it was all obvious in his presentation. The flight operation was reported approximately 3km south of there and in no way to be that confused and refused for 2 hours to ignore the call orders from CENTCOM.,They only responded when Russian jets were picked upon radar leaving the Russian Airbase on an intercept course.

          • Graeme Rymill

            Let me get this straight…the Canadians did mid-air refuelling of US fighters and Reapers and also mid-air refuelling of Danish and Australian Air Force planes on the day of the air strike?

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Sorry didn’t mean the reapers were being refueled , the A330 are dual refuellers systems as they are a multi role tanker they can refuel large aircraft down to the smaller fighters and they have also C-130H which are also converted as a tankers.The CC-150 Polaris can also refuel with a max speed of 1029km/h, which is still used until they select a new fighter.The source was the Syrian Ministry of Defense which you can search it up yourself in regards to the 6-8 hours.

          • Graeme Rymill

            The plane in question is an A310 air refueler, the Canadian don’t have the A330 refueler. The Hercules C-130 refueler the Canadians operate is again just a probe and drogue refueler – no boom. The only Hercules C-130 the Canadian operated in Syria and Iraq was a transport version. See: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page.

            The 6 to 8 hours never happened. I have searched and it isn’t there. Please feel free to make a fool of me by providing just one link that indicates it really happened.

            There are two possibilities for the “facts” that you come out with:
            #1 You have an extremely poor memory
            #2 You just make stuff up.

            Given that you chose Woolpuller for your nickname I am leaning towards #2.

            Thanks to you though I now know more about Canadian Air Force air to air refueling than I would have believed possible! Please keep educating me with your “facts”. All for now.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Keep using incomplete sources on the capabilities unfortunately the Ottawa Citizen really has very little knowledge in regards to anything military in Canada as like most are there lean to the left in socialism.The better source would have been the Military which had already converted 2 Polaris CC 150 to multi role tanker support as was the Globemaster III CC 177 has those capabilities but that is a waste of it’s airlift capability.

          • Graeme Rymill

            The Ottawa Citizen is actually quoting someone who , unlike yourself, does know what he is talking about:

            “That will determine the requirements of the next tanker aircraft,” RCAF
            commander Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood recently explained to MPs. “So whether
            it is a probe-and-drogue, as we use right now, or a boom that flies into
            a refuelling receptacle, we will replace the tanker aircraft with
            whatever our front-line fighter is at the time.”

            Or perhaps this is a sinister conspiracy hatched by the Ottawa Citizen a year and a half ago to throw you off the scent of the Great Canadian Refueling Cover-up.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            They are still flying the others and you only said the C-130J was being used you are the one trying to dilute facts. The article was about the continuing to buy multi role tankers with booms since Canada and all the other allies use probe and drogue for refueling, while the US is the only one to still use boom. The US had started working on fixing the issue between the navy and air force of which the former was already using in their F-16s probe and drogue which allows for safer usage, they have made most their F-16s compatible for probe and drogue efficiency beats out speed as you can refuel 2 at a time where boom only one.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            This was a major problem of incompatibility with the navy and it’s allies so Martin Lockheed had developed it in 2007 so the probe would work on the F-16s planes in 2010 Pakistan had received their upgrades, do you think the US F-16s were not capable of accepting the probe and drogue system, the Israelis were refueling this way long before.

          • Graeme Rymill

            We could go on forever arguing backwards and forwards. Unfortunately who refueled what, when and how that day says nothing about what actually took place as far as mistake versus deliberate act of bombing. I have only indulged because it is fun to point out your numerous mistakes and the amount of stuff you make up. More importantly your wild assertions about refueling point to your utter unreliability concerning the critical 6-8 forewarning you maintain ISIS had from the Coalition. So I intend to leave it at that…. Cheers!

      • คงศักดิ์ วงศ์ชูศรี

        It seem like some agent of US government has secret support with Isis .

  • Cheryl Brandon

    USA pilots go to hell; You wilfully murdered soldiers who were defending their country from terrorist; You will pay a psychological price for being psychopathic about OIL and EMPIRE!

  • Serious

    After. These people returned to USA and the are called “heroes”. XD.

  • Vidura

    If that were the case US command would have carried out many more ”mistakes” to let DZ fall into ISIS hands. More BS from Anti-US outlets.

    • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

      The $600 billion a year US military keeps making these mistakes, doesn’t it, hitting civilians and in this case brave SAA soldiers in Deir-Ezzor. These aren’t mistakes!
      Now, who EXACTLY asked for airstrikes in Deir-Ezzor? It wasn’t the SAA so it must have been the ISIS head-choppers, who just happened to be ready to attack and gain a strategic hilltop, as shown on the map.
      No, the US protected its ISIS baby, which has many uses for the exceptionally violent state.
      No-one is fooled by the LIES of the invading and unwanted US forces in Syria.

      • Vidura

        There is no rational for aiding then defeating ISIS forces.

        • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

          Just remember, the Frankenstein the US has created will come to haunt YOU, the US exceptionalist apologist.
          Read carefully how the Russians contacted the US and went unanswered. Why? Were the US operatives watching porn? Or football? Or did they turn a blind eye so the bombing could continue?
          Face it. Face the truth like a man. The US is truly despised in the region and will be thrown out by its people. Better leave while the going is still good. Let it not be like Saigon in 1975.

        • roger temple

          Ah well. They have to smash a few now and then for propaganda purposes.

    • Ronald

      That was the case , and the USAF did in fact carry out further destruction , the bridges over the river in Deir Ezzor , the following week . Five or six bridges .

      • Graeme Rymill

        How did this harm the SAA? ISIS is on both sides of the river at Deir Ezzor. The SAA isn’t. Clearly destroying the bridges isolate the ISIS and hinder resupply.

        • John Mason

          Other way round, ISIS got supplied from Iraq and Iran, that is why the SAA have taken control of most of their borders.

          • Graeme Rymill

            Sorry I don’t understand.. how did destroying the bridges harm the SAA?

          • Russell A Wilson

            Wake up how would it affect your town if all the bridges leading to and from were destroyed.

          • Graeme Rymill

            The city of Deir Ezzor: please take a look at a map such as the one at livemap Syria http://syria.liveuamap.com/ or a Southfront map https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/eUUh0XX.jpg?x42033

            ISIS is on both sides of the river; the SAA is only only the right side (the southern side) and is totally surrounded by ISIS. Destroying the bridges makes moving reinforcements and supplies harder for ISIS. It causes zero problems to the besieged SAA and in fact benefits them! The coalition were doing it to hurt ISIS and to make things easier for the SDF not to benefit SAA. Nonetheless these bridge demolitions weren’t a hostile act directed against the SAA.

          • Ronald

            There , you said it yourself , ” the coalition were doing it to hurt ISIS , and to make things easier for the SDF , not to benefit SAA “. The SAA controlled both sides of the river , or had the option to , until holding the north side became untenable with the bridges gone .
            Both ISIS and SDF are simply American proxy forces used to gain territory . The “bad guys” , ISIS takes some territory , and then the “good guys” , the SDF comes in and saves the day by taking it from them . The Americans , have just acquired Syrian territory .

          • Graeme Rymill

            The SAA didn’t control both side of the river at all! That is a laughable claim! ISIS have been in control of the left (northern) bank opposite the city of Deir Ezzor since 2014. That never altered in 2016 no matter for what time period you look at the maps.

            January 2016 https://southfront.org/map-studying-the-battle-for-deir-ezzor/

            May 2016 https://southfront.org/syrias-army-gains-ground-in-deir-ezzor-city/

            mid-September 2016 https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2.jpg?x42033

            January 2017: https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20Jan_Deir-Ezzor_Syria_War_Map.jpg?x42033

            The Coalition though wasn’t the only party in this conflict destroying bridges over the Euphrates. In January 2016, the Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) destroyed the Buqaan Bridge near Al-Bukamal, further south in Deir Ezzor province .

            The Russian also got into the bridge destroying act: in October 2016 the Russian Air Force had partially destroyed the main bridge linking Deir Ezzor city across the Euphrates River. Deir Ezzor’s main bridge, known as the ‘Political Bridge’ or ‘Al-Siyasiyah Bridge’, had been destroyed at least three times in the past. Previously, Hezbollah units destroyed the bridge in September 2014 after conducting a special operation behind enemy lines. Upon reconstruction by ISIS engineers, it was destroyed again in October 2015 by the Russian Air Force. The U.S. Air Force struck it on September 27, 2016. See: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-russian-air-force-obstructs-isis-supply-line-destroying-bridge-deir-ezzor/

            Interestingly the reason the Russian’s bombed it is the same reason I have given for the US led bridge bombing campaign – “Effectively, the destruction of the bridge has complicated Islamic State logistics in Deir Ezzor city.” So the Russians, the SAA and the US/Coalition all thought it a good idea to destroy Euphrates bridges to make life difficult for ISIS.

          • Russell A Wilson

            Anything the US does is for its own benefit. They could careless who or what it destroys aslong as they see themselves coming out on top. Perfect example is the latest round of sanctions that hurt the Eu more than hurts Russia.

          • Ace

            Not at all if my enemies prevented traffic on the bridge. Blocked bridge, downed bridge. What’s the difference?

          • Russell A Wilson

            Not a smart move as then the enemy has you surrounded. How do you get out without an air force

    • Russell A Wilson

      Nope because then they lose all credibility as a mistake which is what happened here. How many times have they hit hospitals and claim they were a mistake. The attack on Doctors without borders was another claimed mistake. I just cannot beleive that with all the technology that the US has at its disposal these kinds of claimed mistakes happen unless it is planned or total incompantence. If its in compatence then the west is in real trouble when they find an oppenant with equal technology and knows how to use it.

    • roger temple

      No. It means they thought it would be enough, apologised for the ‘Mistake’, and the found it wasn’t enough. Shafted as usual by their own stupidity.

  • Justin Ryan

    Im done with the USA!
    I notice when I travel to Europe, everyone hates the yanks!
    This is the REAL reason why Canadians wear the Canadian flag on their bags! They don’t want to be ripped off or spat on while they travel Europe!
    Jews and Yanks……. fuck these cunts! Just die already!

    • Wahid Algiers

      Shut up you dirty supporter of the state criminal USA.

      • Justin

        What?? I HATE the USA!
        The entire reason I support Russia and Syria is because of how much I hate the USA!

        Whats your problem?

        • Wahid Algiers

          Sorry Justin. I have misunderstood your comment.

          • Justin

            no worries :)

    • roger temple

      Canadians aren’t liked any more than americans. You people are just a sort of bootlicking grovelling american clone now. You cancelled the Montreal concert of a ukrainian pianist (Valentina Lisitsa) because she told the truth about the american-canadian-european genocide going on in Donbass. And so on……

      • Justin

        Firstly I’m not American nor Canadian! Im Australian!
        second, I totally agree with you on the pianist thing! Was disgusting!
        thirdly, I think u are wrong when u say that Canadians are hated as much as Americans! You may swell say Australians are also because we bootlick too! But, we all bootlick the side that throws us a bone unfortunately!
        However, it is the USA that is massively hated when I travel!
        Australians are loved in my experience! Especially in Turkey!
        So I disagree with u on one point which was my main point but agree with u on others!

        I 100% support the people of East Ukraine!

        Kolomoiski is a Jew and so is Poranshenko! fuck them all!

  • Graeme Rymill

    Mistakes happen all the time in warfare. Below are some incidents involving US aircraft from 2003 in Iraq:

    190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident – 28 March 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing L/CoH. Matty Hull and injuring five others.

    American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed.

    An American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. Kurdish officials advised U.S. helicopters hit the men who were guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Mosul. The U.S. military said the attack was launched after soldiers identified armed men in a bunker near a building reportedly used for bomb-making, and that American troops called for the men to put down their weapons in Arabic and Kurdish before launching the strike.

    SPC Donald Oaks, SGT Todd Robbins, and SFC Randall Rehn of the D Battery, 1st Battalion, 39th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division Artillery were killed when a US fighter jet mistook the rocket artillery from US MLRS as enemy targets on 3 April 2003. The ordinance struck the vehicles of the soldiers killing SFC Rehn instantly, while SGT Robbins and SPC Oaks died shortly after from their wounds. 5 other soldiers were WIA from the event.

    • John Mason

      US did the same in Vietnam, bombing their own troops. Too frequent which usually means a very poor and weak military.

      • Ace

        Garbage.

        • It went something like this ..

          When the British fired the Germans ducked.
          When the Germans fired the British and the Americans ducked.
          When the Americans fired – everybody ducked.

          IOW – it’s not like they aren’t famous for it!

    • Ace

      Note what the author says about static positions. This has nothing to do with the fog of war. The US knew what they were doing. The US liaison officer went for coffee and a donut so the Russians could not communicate that the “coalition” planes were attacking the SAA.

      Get it?

    • People who are that incompetent should not be dropping bombs.

  • northerntruthseeker .

    I read the comments here and I have to howl… How can people not get it yet that the US is in fact “ISIS”? There is in fact NO “terrorist” group known as “ISIS” at all.. That group is the CIA and Mossad clandestine operation group that has been used as the weapon of choice by the bastards in Washington and Tel Aviv for their fraudulent “regime change” in nations that oppose both Israeli and American dominance…

    Therefore it is not a mystery at all as to why the US bombed SAA positions in support of their “ISIS” forces…

  • Orcbuu

    Cant Klick the Map for Full-Size, even when it says under the Map. : /