Syria conflict: Islamic State 'seizes' Tabqa airbase

[flamingdem]

Source: BBC

Fighters from Islamic State (IS) have taken control of a key Syrian government airbase, activists say.

The Tabqa airbase was the last remaining stronghold of Bashar al-Assad's government in Raqqa province.

Syrian state TV confirmed that its forces had "evacuated" the airbase but said they had now regrouped and were conducting airstrikes.


Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28918792

---

The airport's capture came after IS fighters launched a fourth assault on Tabqa overnight, in a bid to cement their control over Raqa province. I read that they're after anti-aircraft batteries for an upcoming fight with guess who?

[flamingdem]

1. Article from Saturday detailing Tabqa clashes and anti-aircraft capture/s

http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2014/08/tabqa-airbase-still-holding-out-against.html

After a series of fierce clashes, the penultimate Pro-Assadist stronghold in Northern Syria is still holding out against fighters of the Islamic State. Tabqa airbase is now the fourth base to have been targeted by fighters of the Islamic State in a series of offensives conducted in lightning speed.

Similar to the attack on Brigade 93, the base was pounded by artillery and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) captured at Regiment 121 and Brigade 93. However, while the capture of Regiment 97, Brigade 93 and Regiment 121 went smoothly, fighters of the Islamic State fell into a prepared, well-executed trap during the assault on Tabqa. Subsequently the Islamic State only managed to capture one anti-aircraft position and a few buildings.

Much of this has to do with the inability of the Islamic State to succesfully defend itself against enemy aircraft, a gap in capabilities fully exploited by the Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF), which not only flew sorties against fighters of the Islamic State, but also managed to resupply the base using Il-76 and An-26 transport planes.

The defence of Tabqa rested on the SyAAF's ability to provide sufficient air cover to not only help defend the base, but also strike back at Islamic State positions. The initial assault was slowed down by the many minefields surrounding the airbase, during which the fighters also came under heavy fire from multiple sides. The SyAAF was subsequently unleashed on the fighters of the Islamic State, which were out in the open and fully exposed. The MiG-21s still present at the airbase remained active during the assault, flying sorties from Tabqa's 9.842 feet long runway.

From today Sunday:
:large

[pampango]

13. So the terrorists end up with Russian anti-aircraft missiles after Obama was reluctant to

provide such weapons to the anti-Assad forces. Obama was right to keep such weapons out of their hands but now they have acquired them from the other side.

When the passenger planes start to fall I hope there are enough pieces left of the missiles to track them back to their source.

[ballyhoo]

2. Had to figure this would happen. IS knew it had to do something with Uncle

Sam about to ride into town. So another contest begins. So who's got more money to spend: SA, Quatar, and Turkey or the American Taxpayer and its entitlements.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Well, at least now we know what to bomb...

Srsly, though, the Syrian forces "evacuated"? Is that a nice way to say they ran away like the Iraqi army did? Jeezus, someone in the Middle East needs to stand and fight (besides the Kurds).

[flamingdem]

4. Just reading that the runway was no longer safe so

they lost air cover and this was their only advantage over Isis.

Too bad that every victory, and this was considered a HUGE victory for Isis, means more recruits. They have the numbers and they're motived by allah, power and $ and the Syrian army, not so much.

[Fred Sanders]

5. I would remind the mass media to ask McCain why he wanted to arm ISIS. They seem to have

forgotten.

[jamzrockz]

6. Wow

Story of IS capturing Syria airbase has 3 recs from DU members.

[tabasco]

9. So what?

There some kind of point you're trying to make?

Is reccing a thread like saying they approve of ISIS? That's just plain stupid if that's what you think.

[riderinthestorm]

10. I will rec a story because its important and want more exposure

Not because I agree or support the contents of the OP

[leftynyc]

18. Recs are for stories deemed important

and in no way show support for any of the parties involved. How could you not know that? Or are you just pretending not to know?

[cosmicone]

7. We should have been on the side of Assad, Hussain, Mubaraq and Q'addafi

all along. Some less evolved populations deserve a dictator to keep law and order.

Now Bashar Assad and Al Sisi are our only hope.

After seeing what a mess Iraq is in, I am amazed at what Saddam Hussain could accomplish there and create a peaceful, secular, vibrant nation with equality for women and minorities. I won't go so far as saying I have respect for him but one must feel some awe that he was able to keep it all together.

Clarification: By "less evolved" I mean in terms of democratic institutions, secular principles and respect for individual rights over religious dogma. I am not saying those populations are neanderthals.

[flamingdem]

8. Agree about the strongman, especially when religion is

involved. And in Latin America as well, the "caudillo" is expected by some populations. Of course the US always wants to impose it's ideology regardless of history.

It's a delicate dance with Assad. Obama might have to give Putin a call!

[BlueEye]

11. For every decent thing Saddam did, he did something reprehensible.

The man was a war criminal who deserved to be shunned and personally sanctioned.

That doesn't mean we made the right decision by invading Iraq to depose him, creating the cluster-f#$( that exists today. Two wrongs don't make a right. But let's be wary of celebrating Saddam Hussein as a benevolent dictator, which he certainly was not. And minorities only got protection when they submitted to Saddam's authoritarianism. The Kurds pushed back and he used nerve gas on them. Not exactly equality for minorities if you ask me.

[pampango]

12. Ouch! "Some less evolved populations deserve a dictator to keep law and order." Got to admit

that I never thought I would see that here at DU.

Now there is a liberal foreign policy. We support dictators in some countries because frankly you folks are just less evolved than those of us in the West.

Or would any of those "less evolved populations" that would benefit from a dictator be in North America or Europe?

[cosmicone]

14. Less evolved in terms of democracy and individual rights

I am not saying they're neanderthals or cromagnuns.

[pampango]

15. How does one determine which peoples are "less evolved" and "deserve a dictator"? Who does this?

If one currently lives under a dictator is that sufficient proof that one is "less evolved in terms of democracy and individual rights" and "deserve a dictator to keep law and order". (Germans, Russians, Japanese and others have been governed by dictators in the past century or so. They have all emerged into democracies with individual rights.)

Is there a way for people living under a dictator to prove (and to whom?) that they are worthy of "democracy and individual rights"?

Some people (I thought, most liberals) think that all people are endowed with individual rights and a right to have a say in who governs them and how. It would seem that you think those are just for the "more evolved".

[cosmicone]

16. I hear you but

if we see teabaggers voting against their economic and political interests over dogma and ideology after nearly 240 years of independence, how can you expect a sudden switch from dictatorship to democracy in people who are even less informed?

See what happened in Egypt -- democracy was just a tool for the jihadist/fanatic muslim brotherhood to take power and start killing minorities.

There is no easy solution and until one is found, dictatorships remain efficient and bring stability. There is a cost for everything.

[pampango]

17. "... dictatorships remain efficient and bring stability."

There is no easy solution and until one is found, dictatorships remain efficient and bring stability. There is a cost for everything.

Until we can find an 'easy solution' to the challenge of achieving democracy and individual rights, "dictatorships remain efficient" (at what exactly?) and "bring stability" (how do they accomplish this?).

How does this preference for dictatorships differ from a right wing approach to democracy and individual rights? American foreign policy should support dictators in "less evolved" parts of the world? Haven't we done a lot of that since WWII (and before)? I thought most liberals did not support this policy. I know one that does not.

Do all liberal goals require a search for "easy solutions" to complex problems?

"There is a cost for everything." - What is the cost of dictatorships?

[oberliner]

19. This post has got to be satirical

I can't believe you can mean this seriously.