BBC: Islamic State fighters re-enter ancient Palmyra in Syria
Islamic State group fighters have re-entered Palmyra, nine months after losing the ancient Syrian desert city.
Monitoring groups say militants and pro-government forces fought fiercely in the centre of Palmyra.
An activist there told the BBC that the city was now "more or less" in IS hands.
Reports from Palmyra say about 50 Syrian troops were killed and there was an unconfirmed report that the rest were fleeing.
There are concerns for the safety of civilians still in the city.
Read more ....
More News On The Islamic State Retaking Palmyra
ISIS Militants Re-Enter Syria's Historic Palmyra -- AP
ISIS is back in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra -- Washington Post
ISIS Close to Recapturing Palmyra From Syrian Forces -- NYT
ISIS jihadis re-enter the ancient city of Palmyra after being chased out eight months ago -- Daily Mail
Islamic State militants enter Palmyra after heavy fighting: monitor -- Reuters
Syrian army rushes forces to historic Palmyra in Islamic State battle, Aleppo fighting continues -- ABC News Online
ISIS reenters Syrian city of Palmyra -- The Hill
Islamic State retakes parts of Syria’s historic Palmyra -- USA Today
Isis ‘retakes part of Palmyra’ in lightning advance nine months after being driven out of ancient Syrian city -- The Independent
Islamic State militants recapture most of Palmyra -- The Australian
ISIS recapture of Palmyra: A fresh assault on heritage sites? -- CSM
12 comments:
They've probably been counter attacked by now. The key would be if, they've driven back out, and just how many and what type of forces did ISIS use in this, It smells of diversion.
James:
The thing is that the situation is not looking so good there. This actual attack on the city was just a phase of a week long operation of IS, which included large areas been captured by them around Tadmur. It's hard to find accurate report on the current situation, it's too blurry to decide who is in control, but at the moment it's seems like IS. As far as I know there was one counterattack last night, with the help of RuAF, but there are reports despite the counterattack (and RuAf killing 300 fighter) SAA decided to retreat, mostly because not just the Eastern/Northern part of the city was partially captured, but there was another IS attack from the South, on the SW edge of the city, and they captured a critical hill ( the citadel) so it's seemed to be useless to defend any longer inside the city (which I disagree). It may look like a diversion, but what could the conceal with this attack, I have no idea, and because of limitation of IS forces I count this one as their main attack. By the end of this day we will get a clearer view on this. However even if IS captured the city, this has no value, change basically nothing, as long as they don't deal large casualties to SAA. Also this defeat mean basically nothing, just make us peek into how SAA construct their frontlines.
I had not heard of the citadel operation (actually I've heard very little). Like you say, if not a diversion then what? The more reports I hear, the more skeptical I get of anything SAA (or anyone else for that matter) puts out. An example: If ISIS can mount a large well coordinated attack on what seems to a useless objective, does that mean there is more to them than is being let out, or are they just desperate to show something and saw this as an easy operation with a high pr value? I'm getting old, the intuition I used to have doesn't come as quickly and as surely as it used to.
Help out a little. The land approaches to Palmyra, how may are there and how much concealment is possible with them? The reason I ask is if ISIS suffered 300 kias that would imply a minimum of 300 wias, and that would imply a minimum of 3000 of fighters involved on the ISIS side. They had to get there somehow and that's a lot of people to move in that environment (very open) without a break down of intel (or inside help at intel).
Good to hear from you Laszlo.
James:
Let me tell you, unlike with the rebels or SAA, I often have hard time to find the logic behind IS operations, but I'm sure there must be some. If we step through the general idea of capturing new areas, Tadmur have very minimal strategic and military importance (if we see the capture of T4 Airbase not a realistic goal) for an organisation such as IS. I think you are on the right path, with the desperation and pr move. Recently too much IS fighter die in Iraq and Syria, and new ones are not coming in great numbers, or if at all, and they could expect this would help their recruiting (which I do not expect), but even if not, it's still a nice article on the news sites that IS is still alive and kicking. Also the city is somewhat a free meat, so why not do both thing at once.
If I recall my memories correctly, after SAA recaptured the city last time, with the Russian forces they advanced toward the East, about 10km away or so from the city. But during the last one year SAA kept losing (albeit slowly) territory, and despite RuAF had a heavy present in the area (there were UAV footages released by Ru Def.Min. during some briefing back in September of this year that they were destroying some IS tank and BMPs) the losing was continuous. I see this just as a move/drift in force ratios by SAA, because the Aleppo and North Hama frontlines collapsed in Aug.-September this year, and those are way more important than Tadmur, so probably this frontline was intentionally left weak, and SAA relied on the terrain, distance between the enemy and the power of Airforce, but the top SAA forces have not fought in the entire area for a very long time now.
The 300 number I think just approximated, but I do not know how much to believe that report, but anyway there were reports of some thousands of IS fighters were involved in the operation, however I cannot confirm this to you, I have not seen that much. What I seen from different footages were some hundreds of fighters, tanks, off-road vehicles (mostly not armored, fast variants for modest range fire support). Yes, in general the terrain is open, stone desert like environment that is dominated by mountain ridges and hilltops, but I heard reports that the weather was bad early this week, but the footages from the last two days showed it as quiet clear, so I do not know how much effect does this had. On road IS could fortify, resupply and reposition large forces just by their fast offroad vehicles, so it could be possible. How did they advance in such a terran? Well if you check the videos from the link below you could see the lack of dead SAA forces (because they retreated already, large amount of equipment were left behind again, and I cannot understand this) and the heavy suppressing fire on hilltop position of SAA forces while IS fighters advanced, this well enough for them to advance successfully.
You can find some recent videos on this YT account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHzPzev5pDVXLBWQslKxBtw/videos
Well James, good to have a conversation with you about real matters, instead of me looosing my sht about something uninportant, such as the yesterday topic. I just gotta keep my positive attitude.
Laszlo,
"I just gotta keep my positive attitude."
It goes back to when we lived in caves. There were those who wanted to see what was outside, but many others (we now call them the media and politicians) said "if you go out there, saber toothed tigers will eat you". Well many ignored this advice and went outside, found a wonderful world, built cities, etc etc. Today we call them optimists.
Unfortunately some did eaten by saber toothed tigers hence the beginning of the school of pessimism. In an interesting historical footnote it is known that the pessimists migrated away and founded Russia, where they wrote very long books in which everyone had the same name and played chess oddly enough, while dressed for hockey.
The moral of course is we would still be in those caves if it wasn't for optimists, but there is a price, some got eaten.
There were others, such as the realists, who scurried back in the cave at the first sign of trouble. They later left and founded France.
James:
What do they say about Hungarians, where from we came, what type of people settled here? I heard we are the descendant of aliens...
Laszlo .... considering the long list of Nobel Laureates that Hungary has produced .... and my experiences with a Hungarian girlfriend who is still one of my best friends of over 30 years .... you guys are aliens!!!!!
The Russian speaks!
Laszlo,
The origin of Hungarians is lost in the mists of time. It is said that the alarm would be sounded "the Huns are here!" whilst someone else would say "no no no, it's the Magyars" while arguing this point most of them were wiped out or moved to Albania and exited the pages of history.
It is known that many migrated here to Texas, bring with them exquisite saddle making and a peculiar music based on the tuba.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT8_2kk1YTCkAp8dXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHZ0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1481507702/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.texancultures.com%2fassets%2f1%2f15%2fTexans_One_and_All%2520-%2520The%2520Hungarian%2520Texans.pdf/RK=0/RS=FyS_SlEhqE7nDshiqWEhVXtdnO8-
I thought the Hungarians were related to the Finns, but moved south learned how to become a steppe tribe.
What i really like to know is who the Szekels are. They came after the Hungarians and were treated favorably by the crown. The are also a nomadic tribe.
The more I know every day.
WNU, I tell you the secret, it's was the work of ethnic diversity, however this gone with the monarchy and great Hungary, and since we are something different, so do not expect a lot from us anymore.
James, thanks for the link, it's nice to see that they were noted, and there is a remembrance for them there.
Aizio, it's a difficult matter, but we only share language relations with the Finns, but we are believed to came from the Ural mountain in Russia, also there are some other theories. Székely-s as we call them have also a difficult history of origin, but they are counted as Hungarian, even if they live in Romania, they still speak Hungarian. As far as I know my ancestors (Mikó as a surname) is also originated from there, and they settled in the town where I live now just around 1750. But our history got very complicated during the last 1000 year, and hard to tell who is who.
László Mikó
When Is said the Hungarians were related to the Finns, I meant that they were more closely related linguistically & genetically to the Finns than anyone else. The Finns are an Ural-Altaic people. So the Hungarians coming form the Urals while being related to the Finns is not a shock and not contradictory.
The Manchus who conquered China twice speak a Tunguistic language, which is also Ural-Altaic. They were also people of the forest, who learned to use horses and became conquerors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural%E2%80%93Altaic_languages
There was some news articles nearly a generation ago about genetic markers for depression and the similarity between Hungary & Finland.
The Hungarians were probably a subject tribe of the Huns or such. They learned the ropes and ended up on top.
Laszlo,
Kidding aside. When I was young I knew some old time cowboys (the genuine articles). I remember them talking about tack, and they were convinced that Hungarian saddles were the best, better than Spanish or any other make. They said they would last the longest and they were the best ride by far. They would say you could sit in a Hungarian like no other. Till the next time.
Post a Comment