Turkey-Backed Syria Rebels Capture Key Town of Dabiq from IS
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
Turkish-backed rebel fighters on Sunday captured the northern Syrian town of Dabiq from the Islamic State jihadist group, a monitoring group and rebels said.
Dabiq holds crucial ideological importance for IS because of a Sunni prophecy that states it will be the site of an end-of-times battle between Christian forces and Muslims.
The town itself has negligible military value compared with the strategic IS-controlled cities of Raqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebels backed by Turkish warplanes and artillery "captured Dabiq after IS members withdrew from the area."
Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said the fighters also captured the nearby town of Sawran.
One Turkey-backed rebel faction, the Fastaqim Union, also said Dabiq had fallen "after fierce clashes with Daesh," using the Arabic acronym for IS.
It published pictures on Twitter of a group of fighters on the back of a small white truck waving assault rifles in the air, with the town of Dabiq apparently in the background.
According to Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency, the rebel fighters were working to dismantle mines laid in the town by retreating IS fighters.
Anadolu said nine Syrian rebels were killed and 28 others wounded during clashes on Saturday.
16 October 2016, 14:55
164
funny how daesh fights to the death everywhere when attacked by the syrian army, but retreats with minimal resistance when turkish proxies move in...
16 October 2016, 15:12
164
two contradictory statements here
>The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebels backed by Turkish warplanes and artillery "captured Dabiq after IS members withdrew from the area."
>One Turkey-backed rebel faction, the Fastaqim Union, also said Dabiq had fallen "after fierce clashes with Daesh," using the Arabic acronym for IS.
which one is it? i think it's hard to believe the second statement by the fassatin union, "fierce clashes" would typically last more than half a morning and cause more than the reported 9 casualties.
16 October 2016, 17:14
123
It makes no difference if ISIS or Turkeys salafis use it.
It is occupation and invasion no matter what.
Only the Syrian Army liberates areas, because it is Syrian territory not Turkey Ottoman Empire or Baghdadis caliphate.
17 October 2016, 01:37
102
i agree mystic, it's basically a transfer between a proxy group and it's owner, but from a syrian perspective it makes no difference. might be more complicated to retake them though, turkey will most likely be harder to dislodge than daeshits...
17 October 2016, 04:17
37
"": أنباء عن انسحاب "داعش" من المنطقة الشرقية لمدينة الموصل.
it's basically a transfer between a proxy group and its owner.
17 October 2016, 10:19
16
البيشمركة تسيطر على 7 قرى خلال 4 ساعات من عملية استعادة الموصل.
the question to be asked mowaten is : will liberating 7 villages take more than 4 hours or you think ISIS is handing over the territory to its masters?
17 October 2016, 15:25
60
it's a bit different here, there daeshits are being transferred to Syria under a US-saudi deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836690/ISIS-fighters-allowed-flee-Mosul-retreat-Syria-agreement-claims-Russia.html
17 October 2016, 15:27
60
the report was 4 days ago, apparently it is being confirmed by the facts on the ground. basically the masters of daesh have decided to regroup them in deir ezzor & raqqa to focus on killing syrians and russians
17 October 2016, 16:05
25
"being transferred to Syria under a US-saudi deal"
so why everybody on earth is bombing them as we speak if it is a deal. Just repeating what your master said.
17 October 2016, 16:06
25
ISIS fighters 'will be allowed to flee Mosul and retreat to Syria under agreement made with the US' claims Russia
claims Russia:))!
17 October 2016, 18:12
40
yes, claims russia, and so? in terms of truthfulness they have a far better record than the US and other western countries who lie through their teeth from morning to night.
and you dont even have to take their word for it, just see what's happening on the ground, in northern aleppo and around mosul (and soon we will see how it goes in mosul proper), how can we explain these massive withdrawals without fight? if one thing isis fighters have been known for it's their suicidal "to-the-death" style of fighting, how come they suddenly dont anymore?
16 October 2016, 17:54
410
Bold and Factual as ever
@mowaten
What can one say, another E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T comment. I particularly enjoyed the part where you said "retreats with minimal resistance when turkish proxies move in..."
Thank you for making our lives so much better.
Thank you
Still laughing since January 2015.
16 October 2016, 15:05
69
"minimal resistance when turkish proxies move in....."
that marks an improvement from your previous paid statement:
".mowaten.
not a shot was fired during the whole "operation", ISIS handed over Syrian land to their turkish bosses, plain and simple"
16 October 2016, 15:08
58
The Britain-based monitor said 21 rebels were killed and dozens more wounded, many seriously, while attempting to secure the village of Turkman Barah, near the flashpoint IS-held town of Dabiq in Aleppo province.
16 October 2016, 18:47
38
.mowaten. I'm not a big poster here but I have been using this site for over 39 years and recently I have been liking your posts, you're the only one informing these deluded ignorants. :)
16 October 2016, 19:42
112
Can you tell me if anybody in Lebanon or anybody who calls themselves Lebanese thinks that Article 24, that reserves half of Parliament for Christians, brings stability to Lebanon? The sharp end of that question is, why doesn't Hezbollah put the Shia masses on the street to demand electoral justice? I just assume the Sunni elite has sold out, to KSA, for example. I can't understand Hezbollah smiling broadly in this arrangement and saying it respect, what, "partnership". Before, the Christians had the threat of resuming civil war with NATO help to back up the power-sharing. Is that threat still valid?
17 October 2016, 01:31
102
my two cents chrisrushlau: it's not a big issue if christians have a guaranteed representation, and i personally prefer seeing a coexistence formula where all have equal say (even if some groups are bigger than others), rather than increase the sectarian divide by linking sect size to political power. this would encourage "inside marriages" (or rather discourage mixed marriages) to conserve/increase sect size. also, what about athetists in such a system? how would they have a say?
i dont think it's a good idea to mix religion and politics even more than they already are, i'd rather see things move towards more secularism rather than more communitarianism
