Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its Turkish-backed allies suffered from catastrophic losses in their recent failed attack in the northern Hama countryside.
The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) released on June 19 several photos showing some of HTS’ losses, including 3 destroyed vehicles and the dead bodies of 10 militants. According to pro-government sources, the terrorist group also lost two battle tanks and an armored vehicle.
-
- Click to see full-size image
-
- Click to see full-size image
-
- Click to see full-size image
-
- Click to see full-size image
-
- Click to see full-size image
-
- Click to see full-size image
While the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that 37 militants were killed in the attack, a military source told Muraselon, a pro-government outlet, that the army killed at least 65 fighters of HTS and its allies.
HTS attempted to hide its loses by claiming that the attack was limited, as usual. However, the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation (NFL) acknowledged that it had lost “dozens of fighters” in an official statement.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) could take advantage of the militants’ low morale and launch a ground attack to recapture the towns of Jibeen and Tell Meleh, which were lost earlier this month.
Click to see the full-size image
Good.Death to all Turcoalphabets in Syria and Iraq! Long live Assad.
Dead American backed terrorist are good terrorists
No need to blur the faces of these dead beasts! Let us the U$ and their other backers see the their comrades lie dead!
Islamic cockroach must be wiped out!
My description would be ‘ US/Iraeli/NATO proxy terrorist thugs falsely flying the banners of Islam must be wiped out’.
Very true, but I’ve chosen a short cut since islam is a jewish creation, islamic terror is an anglo zionist creation.
Get off the drugs
You believed in the Islam campaign and you still believe in it. Don’t try to deny it……………..LOL.
That’s a good one
In the new war America, Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other US puppet regimes in the region would be losers. However, nothing will happen to Iran because Iran has already deployed nuclear warheads on their missiles.
Iran does not scare from any US and NATO threats. Iran has the capability to nuke 30 targets simultaneously anywhere in the world as far as 16,000 km far away.
of all the things to do in this life .. you choose to be a terrorist! smh .. you live by the sword…
In other countries the terrorists the US secret force and their nests are hidden therefore, its need intel power to locat and dismantle it, while in Syria they are prominent waiting for a powerful blow of Syrian and Russian forces to dismantle that without care.
The air strike and cruise missiles strike, artillery strike need to inste intensified with large ground operation at dawn under air coverage…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4UqMyldS7Q
Zionist army must be destroy
I to wish the author’s of these reports would choose their adjectives more accurately.
Any ‘offensive’ that loses a handful of vehicles and under 100 terrorists killed, from about 15,000 or so trained terrorists within Idlib , is NOT catastrophic.
“catastrophic[ kat-uh-strof-ik ]SHOW IPA EXAMPLES|SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR catastrophic ON THESAURUS.COM adjective of the nature of a catastrophe, or disastrous event; calamitous: a catastrophic failure of the dam.”
It is a failure at worst and a setback at best.
Perhaps the author has been reading to many AMN articles Florian. Where every point on the map is critical and strategically important. :)
Yes, that has been a pattern there, partly due to poor translation . However if that is the case, who are at fault? Those who translate into inaccurate English , or those of us who make little attempt to learn other languages ? OR would it be beneficial for a reasonably educated English speaker and literate proof reader to suggest different adjective’s when necessary?
We are all fortunate to have access to such foreign news sites though, and without them we would rely on the likes of CNN and the BBC to give an unbiased new flow .:)
If you were part of a couple of hundred man assault force that loses 67 dead and more injured and most of your heavy weapons are destroyed. How would you describe what happened?
I would they suffered terrible loses. Not catastrophic for the HTS. But if you are one of the rats in a small unit that was almost wiped out, they might agree with the wording. :)
No it wasn’t catastrophic for HTS. But if it was a company sized operation. It was catastrophic for that force. Florian sees a pattern of overstatements at SF. I agree that AMN does that. I haven’t noticed a similar issue here. If, like this story. You put it in the context of the battle in isolation. And don’t apply it to the regional campaign or entire war.
All writers like to overstate the headline just to catch your attention. Company sized operation sounds right. I think SAA deploys elements of very weak divisions in battalion form that are ready for action, or maybe even by company.
The SAA also has air power and satcom capability that the terrorists don’t. So even with company to company size engagements. Knowing where your enemies are and being able to call in precision strikes can be decisive. Which looks like it was a factor in this instance judging from some of the pictures.
It depends on the context being used. In terms of clearing Idlib using the figures that you cite. Catastrophic would be an overstatement. But the article is referring to a single battle in northern Hama. Not the entire Idlib clearing operation. It doesn’t describe the strength of forces involved in the northern Hama battle. But if a few hundred were involved. Catastrophic could be a reasonable description.
nice you must explain to paedo queen of ottoman ways proper noun
That can be said. The overall impression though is of a small scale attack that was only really ‘catastrophic’ to the low numbers of dead terrorists.
Language is important, and to use language correctly ,one must be able to understand it. That means having knowledge of various words that can describe a scene in context to it’s scale.
“catastrophic [ kat-uh-strof-ik ] SEE DEFINITION OF catastrophic adj.destructive Synonyms for catastrophic calamitous cataclysmic disastrous fatal ruinous tragic cataclysmal catastropha ”
In my opinion the appropriate words to have used for even an extreme description of the failed terrorist attack, would have been either ‘disastrous’ or ‘fatal’. l
Yes, it’s a question of scale.
67 dead, 3 technicals, 2 tanks and an apc destroyed sounds like they wiped out a significant portion of the assault force. I’m guessing that the majority of the weaponised equipment in terms of weight was destroyed and 30% to 50% of the attacking force, maybe higher. Of the attacking force was killed or injured.
Those types of losses for a force without air cover has got to make the terrorists think twice before they go into that type of buzz saw again. These types of reports confirmed by the survivors. Is probably a contributing factor to the success of the clearing operations to date.
I just feel that ‘catastrophe ‘ in a military context is better suited to the Retreat from Dunkirk, the British casualties during the Battle of the Somme, the German defeat at Stalingrad and the British Defeat in Singapore et al are genuine catastrophe’s that had huge strategic consequence’s.
This terrorist defeat in Idlib has no strategic importance, only the tactical importance of the moment. The equipment involved suggests it was a company strength attack, and a battalion strength at the most.
Anyway, we both agree that it was preferable that the NATO backed terrorist gang lost, and that is the most important point :)
I agree that alot of the AMN headlines are over statements even taking scale and perspective into consideration. I wouldn’t put this headline in the same category.
I understand your perspective that you feel that the battle was to small to justify being classified as a military catastrophe. Because it isn’t sufficient to make much difference to the campaign that it’s part of for either side. But I can also see it from the participants perspective. I realize that you’d be more comfortable with a term like disastrous. And I wouldn’t disagree that it would be appropriate. But considering how lopsided and destructive the loss evidently was for the terrorists. In the context of just this battle itself. I don’t think that SF misused a description of what happened. In the way that AMN routinely sensationalizes it’s headlines.
In terms of engagements of this size. It’s probably in the top 5% range of how many people and how much equipment was lost so quickly. Which is why I’m ok with SF describing it how they did in this case. That’s assuming that much of the attacking force was quickly wiped out. If it was a larger battle and the losses were a smaller percentage. And I don’t know the exact numbers involved. Then I’d agree that even in isolation. That it’s a misuse of the term.
>65 dead >”catastrophic losses” smdh.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! EAT SHIT AND DIE ALL U RATS!!!!! UR NO MATCH FOR SAA!!!
when u think of what isis did to the alawis and yazidis. it is similar to the genocide of palestinians. we need a better punishment for these types. somthing horrible and medieval that will give chickenpoo nightmares for as long as he lives. empaling the cheneys and the trumps along the golan border would do the trick.
I believe desert warfare is necessarily fluid and scaled according to circumstances—any large scale assault would be vulnerable to missiles, artillery, aerial bombing
A defensive position of mortars and/or artillery can be very devastating..Add Russian bombardment..it can be catastrophic to an offensive plan. The question is..when will Turkey step in militarily .. to destroy Assad’s forces..how long will it take watching thousands die . Turkeys army is the largest in the middle east, best trained, best equipped.. Just a matter of time before Turkey ends this conflict.. Bismark famous speech. ” Only blood and steal can change the will of man”.