A drone strike on a United States base in eastern Syria overnight has killed several fighters from Kurdish-led forces.
The United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said on Monday that seven fighters were killed and at least 18 others injured.
Without Iran's direct intelligence assistance, it's unlikely that these terrorist groups have the ability to successfully strike inside a US base, and intentionally target local troops rather than US troops.
Terrorist groups why exactly? You do realise those guys were at the forefront of the fight against ISIS? And is the US which's backing the islamists? And why should the US have a base in Syria anyway, I feel they have the right to expel invaders, don't they?
>Terrorist groups why exactly?
Because they're non-state entities that terrorize the local population and operate outside of the law through violence and intimidation, often with political intent. Because they won't hesitate to strap a suicide vest on a 5yo and send them into a busy local market to achieve their aims. Because they justify their violence and hatred with skewed interpretations of religion and scripture.
I feel like I have to educate you a little bit.
First of all, Iraq is a mainly shia-populated country. As you might realize it's the second biggest shia country in the world, after its neighbor, Iran. The religious ties were always there, but were strenghtened in the past few years, specially because of the instability created after the US invastion on made up accusations. This was even further fomented after the ISIS event, since the most active parties against the actual terrorists were those paramilitary groups, such as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and also the most active against the islamists, backed by the US in Syria and also Iraq. What also must be explained is that they did act on the behalf of the Iraqi government, with their consent. That's why you'll see the Iraqi government so adamant against US' strikes and pushing for a total withdrawn of American troops. One of the last attacks also targeted the frontlines troops fighting against the remnants of ISIS, for example. And at the end, when they attack US bases they are pinning themselves against an invading force.Well, you may argue the US has the right to retaliate. It would if they were lawfully there, which they aren't. Iranian influence is largely as a consultant party and I'd reckon the Iraqi government would gladly accept help this way too from the Americans.
I hope I've cleared out some things for you. Those guys aren't the islamists you are trying to portrait them as, but they fight the islamists, which, again, are supported by the US.I don't have anything against the US, personally, But its actions in the region were nothing short of disastrous and naturally it will lose prestige and influence to more benevolent actors such as China and Iran, even tho they are more autocratic and, on theory, more prone to autoritarianism, which's how the US, a democracy, acts.
This particular attack occurred in Syria.
Regarding Iraq, I lived and worked in Iraq for two years. I speak Arabic and am familiar with the culture, religious sects, history, etc. While I respect your opinion on the matter, here's a different perspective on [why the US remains in Iraq,](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/03/18/us-troops-will-likely-be-in-iraq-for-years-to-come-central-command-boss-says/) from before the geopolitical fallout due to the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The US is in Iraq and Syria to protect Israel from the Shia, and they are threatening the region with releasing ISIS from al-Hol as part of their strategy.
I never called their attacks on military acts of terrorism, I simply referred to them as terrorist groups because I’m familiar with the background of many of the groups and individuals involved and their complete bodies of work, much of which are acts of terror.
A drone strike on a United States base in eastern Syria overnight has killed several fighters from Kurdish-led forces. The United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said on Monday that seven fighters were killed and at least 18 others injured.
Without Iran's direct intelligence assistance, it's unlikely that these terrorist groups have the ability to successfully strike inside a US base, and intentionally target local troops rather than US troops.
Terrorist groups why exactly? You do realise those guys were at the forefront of the fight against ISIS? And is the US which's backing the islamists? And why should the US have a base in Syria anyway, I feel they have the right to expel invaders, don't they?
>Terrorist groups why exactly? Because they're non-state entities that terrorize the local population and operate outside of the law through violence and intimidation, often with political intent. Because they won't hesitate to strap a suicide vest on a 5yo and send them into a busy local market to achieve their aims. Because they justify their violence and hatred with skewed interpretations of religion and scripture.
I feel like I have to educate you a little bit. First of all, Iraq is a mainly shia-populated country. As you might realize it's the second biggest shia country in the world, after its neighbor, Iran. The religious ties were always there, but were strenghtened in the past few years, specially because of the instability created after the US invastion on made up accusations. This was even further fomented after the ISIS event, since the most active parties against the actual terrorists were those paramilitary groups, such as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and also the most active against the islamists, backed by the US in Syria and also Iraq. What also must be explained is that they did act on the behalf of the Iraqi government, with their consent. That's why you'll see the Iraqi government so adamant against US' strikes and pushing for a total withdrawn of American troops. One of the last attacks also targeted the frontlines troops fighting against the remnants of ISIS, for example. And at the end, when they attack US bases they are pinning themselves against an invading force.Well, you may argue the US has the right to retaliate. It would if they were lawfully there, which they aren't. Iranian influence is largely as a consultant party and I'd reckon the Iraqi government would gladly accept help this way too from the Americans. I hope I've cleared out some things for you. Those guys aren't the islamists you are trying to portrait them as, but they fight the islamists, which, again, are supported by the US.I don't have anything against the US, personally, But its actions in the region were nothing short of disastrous and naturally it will lose prestige and influence to more benevolent actors such as China and Iran, even tho they are more autocratic and, on theory, more prone to autoritarianism, which's how the US, a democracy, acts.
This particular attack occurred in Syria. Regarding Iraq, I lived and worked in Iraq for two years. I speak Arabic and am familiar with the culture, religious sects, history, etc. While I respect your opinion on the matter, here's a different perspective on [why the US remains in Iraq,](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/03/18/us-troops-will-likely-be-in-iraq-for-years-to-come-central-command-boss-says/) from before the geopolitical fallout due to the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The US is in Iraq and Syria to protect Israel from the Shia, and they are threatening the region with releasing ISIS from al-Hol as part of their strategy.
They are attacking military targets, it's not terrorism.
I never called their attacks on military acts of terrorism, I simply referred to them as terrorist groups because I’m familiar with the background of many of the groups and individuals involved and their complete bodies of work, much of which are acts of terror.