What happened to the Red Crescent convoy?


There is something very strange about the supposed Syrian or Russian air attack  on a relief convoy somewhere to the west (?) of government held west Aleppo.  "Barish" is a German member of the SST community and he offers the following.  pl


"… Several things about the convoy – run by SARC – don't add up. One, it set out from govt.-held west Halab to the countryside mere hours before. Might suggest that someone somewhere failed to communicate this to Syrian and Russian military, or that those doing the run for whatever reason ignored the possibility that the ceasefire would expire/security in the area be dicey. Two, despite various news agencies already pinning it on air-strikes, no determination how the attack was carried out was yet made. SARC's official statement, themselves affected, does not do so either, see here: http://sarc.sy/syria-attack-humanitarian-convoy-attack-humanity/ Three, there's both photos and video around, supposedly of the incident. Video-footage here is night-time: https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/777989672249266176 Photos taken in day-light can be viewed here: https://twitter.com/GissiSim/status/778109172294512641 Does that line up with damage done by air-strikes? Both RU and Syrian MoDs came out and officially denied air strikes in the area. Doesn't still rule out a cock-up considering possible failure to communicate this convoy's presence at just that time, but still."  Barish

This entry was posted in Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to What happened to the Red Crescent convoy?

  1. I just heard about this while watching RT. Not only did they deny any Russian or Syrian air attack, but they pointed out the the photos of the damage are not consistent with an air attack. The attack site remaims under rebel control and with RPGs, TOWs and IEDs, any level of damage can be simulated so the real truth will probably never be proved. This all smacks of another MH-17 or Ghouta chemical attack.

  2. BabelFish says:

    I viewed some of the videos. Not equipped to offer any analysis but I will never understand how the people we elected to run our nation can sleep at night, seeing the living version of perdition they have helped create.

  3. mike says:

    early comments on various Kurdish twitter feeds were saying that it was undetermined whether it was an airstrike or a VBIED or something else

  4. Lemur says:

    Russians said they had a drone on it coming in, stopped tracking it on the way back, at which point they assume rebels shelled it.
    On another note, does anybody have access to this article?

  5. Lemur,
    I happened upon the article and will write a post about it. The author, Jack Murphy, has this on his website behind a paywall. I will respect his copyright. I happened to see it on another site and did not realize it was copyrighted. I will do a post on the article hitting some of its highlights because it is so good.

  6. Will says:

    i turn to Col Cassad to get the scoop. Don’t know where he gets his stuff. It may be like Debka, run by state intelligence. like the Col says, evaluate the source and material separately. his explanation is coherent and consistent internally. Like the judge used to instruct the jury during jury trials: you are the sole judge of the evidence- u can believe some, all, or note of the testimony of a witness based on bias, interest, consistency, opportunity to observe w/ other evidence …..
    it’s not pulling up right now. Yandex translates Cassad best.
    in a nutshell this is what i remember when i read it. oh here it goes
    still can’t find it, but it went like this: it was not UN but Syrian Red Crescent. The convoy started late, and by the time it got unloaded, it was dark. the workers did now want to take the chance of staying in dangerous E. Aleppo overnight. So they headed back in the dark, which is against protocol. Thus the tragedy.
    this incident probably is an accident unlike deir ez zor (hereinafter EZ) (written in Arabic script as deir el zor but the l merges with the z so it’s pronounced ezZor. kinda of like ar-rhaman). EZ had been beseiged by ISIS for a couple of years, and i disbelieve that A Carter wanted to bomb ISIS/IS/Daesh to relieve the siege. US policy has been mostly to leave IS in alone so as to weaken the SAA, or at least in Syria. Only started bombing IS in Syria effectively after the Russians arribed. Another instance of weaponized Wahhabi (or Deodbani) takfiri Jihadists.
    For anybody that’s interested EZ, named after a monastery (Deir) that was there a long time ago ( and Zor which is brush on the riverbank, was the site of an Armenian killing site by the Ottomans. They had been marched thru the desert w/o food or water. herded out in the open or in caves, and starved to death or executed. ISIS blew up an Armenian remembrance memorial at the site.

  7. fjdixon says:

    I noted that the video on BBC reportedly showing the attack there is audio of a person yelling Allahu Akbar. Seems suspicious.

  8. kooshy says:

    I will never understand how the people we elected to run our nation can sleep at night”
    IMO, long ago, even before they become deciders they have passed /overcome the Sleep deprivation over their spread of death and destruction. Apparently only poor US serviceman that they send to their destructive missions have a problem with sleeping. If you heard BHO speech at the UN today, you can understand how much sleep he has lost in last few days.

  9. Vic says:

    Photos do not look like an air strike. No bomb craters, no near by blast damage and the destroyed trucks are largely still intact. Looks like some sort of incendiary weapon. Anyone still use Napalm? Does this look like the damage from WP air burst artillery fire? Any of the rebels have the Russian manpac flame thrower rocket system (bumblebee)? Any rebels known to put gasoline cans in front of their IEDs?
    Just wondering.

  10. Matthew says:

    TTG: And the full-scale, wall-to-wall MSM coverage is absent. We normally get when the State Department has sanctioned the “outrage.”

  11. Cee says:

    Nobody Believes in It. Everyone on the Ground Knows They Are Jihadis.’ — US Special Forces Hate Their Syria Mission

  12. Ghostship says:

    According to the Guardian, the convoy’s destination was west of Aleppo at a village/town called Urem al-Kubra about 12 kms. inside rebel territory.
    Originally, a Guardian article claimed that the convoy set out from Damascus with supplies from the UN warehouse there. It makes sense to send it via Aleppo as then it would only have to deal with government checkpoints rather than numerous rebel checkpoints. But this raises an important question; if the Syrian or Russian governments had wanted to stop these supplies reaching the rebels, why not just stop it leaving Aleppo? It also means that the Syrian and Russian governments knew exactly what was being carried by the convoy so they had no reason to destroy it because it might have been carrying contraband goods.

  13. Liza says:

    Col. Lang:
    I’ve been looking over some Russian websites and Facebook posts to find out the Russian reaction to these incidents.
    Nikolai Starikov, a prominent Russian writer and political figure, attributed the bombing that struck SAA forces as the result of American reliance on Saudi and Qatari intelligence.
    This is the translation of what he wrote (note that the translation is not grammatically correct):
    “Americans have big problems with guided bomb on military objectives, which, apparently, due to the fact that they don’t have on-site field agents, and they use the information from Saudi and Qatari intelligence. And here it cannot be ruled out that the gulf countries here playing their game …”
    Is it acstually possible that the US is relying on Saudi and Qatari intelligence ? I assumed that the US had special forces in Syria so that Pentagon wouldn’t have to rely on foreign intelligence.
    The situation does seem to have normalized today. South Front reported that the SAA regained some of the lost ground with Russian air support.
    This is the link to Starikov’s post. His post is lengthy and the translation button is at the bottom.

  14. Ghostship says:

    “So they headed back in the dark”
    If they were heading back in the dark why are the burnt out trucks parked at the side of the road?
    And then there is the big red and green truck:
    If it had been bombed, I would be surprised to see glass in one of the cab windows and un-fractured at that. If asked how far do i think that truck could travel now, I would suggest that it’s further than one might think because other than missing a cover from the engine compartment it appears intact. The headlamps, still have glass lenses, those Syrian/Russian bombs are oh so clever because that engine cover has been so neatly removed instead of being a twisted piece of metal hanging off the truck, there are no scorch marks, the tyres are undamaged and the contents look as though they have been staged to look like the truck was hit by a bomb.
    The UN is now backing off the claim that this was a result of an air strike.

  15. Ghostship says:

    A handful of Molotov Cocktails would do, since it doesn’t appear the trucks were moving when they were set on fire and were parked up at the side of the road.

  16. fjdixon says:

    After the Russian explanation, the U.N. put out a revised version of an earlier statement, removing wording on “air strikes” and replacing it with references to unspecified “attacks”.
    U.N. humanitarian spokesman Jens Laerke said the references to air strikes in the original statement, attributed to the top U.N. humanitarian officials in the region and in Syria, were probably the result of a drafting error.
    “We are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact air strikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked,” he said.
    Washington said it still believed the attacks were the result of an air strike, which could only have been carried out by Russia or the Syrian military.

  17. toto says:

    “This all smacks of another MH-17 or Ghouta chemical attack.”
    Yes, exactly. Yet another case where what happened is blatantly obvious to everyone who’s not mainlining “information” from the neo-Pravda constellation.
    I actually went to Sputnik news to see what the official line was. Didn’t find anything on the subject, but I did find stories about 9/11 “controlled demolition” and Turkish firms trafficking organs from ISIS.

  18. Thomas says:

    “This all smacks of another MH-17 or Ghouta chemical attack.”
    If the Borg Story keeps on working, why change?

  19. The Beaver says:

    Almasdar news has this:
    The Russian military unveiled on Tuesday video footage of a UN humanitarian aid convoy that came under attack in Syria, which shows a militants’ pickup vehicle carrying a large-caliber mortar as part of the convoy.
    The video shows that the UN aid convoy was accompanied by a terrorists’ off-road vehicle with a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said.
    “The examination of the video footage made via drones of the movement of the humanitarian convoy in areas controlled by militants in the province of Aleppo has revealed new details. The video clearly shows how terrorists are redeploying a pickup with a large-caliber mortar on it using the convoy as a cover,” Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

    Guess that’s why those International Civil servants at Turtle Bay had to change their tune. Pic does not lie.
    Well some at UNSC must have wanted the “accident” of last Saturday @ Deir-Ezzor to be off the radar with these so-called air-strikes .

  20. Fred says:

    You ask the obvious question. I have to conclude that the R+6 doesn’t want to stop aid, they are really trying to intentionally provoke an intervention so they can lose the war they are winning.

  21. Kooshy says:

    Here we go again back to red lines and late night UNSC emergency meetings. Colonel LANG, IMO the globalist Borg and her under controll governments, including this nation’ are not willing to even accept a draw in Syria. Now is the bad old Putin who did in the UN aid convoy. At least one thing that is comforting ( to most Iranians beside possibility of seeing smoking guns for real ) is that no longer is bad old Ahmadinijad who did it, it now is the bad old Putin who did it, all that certified by Barbara Star of CNN.

  22. BabelFish says:

    Can’t see any frag damage but a CBU? Little impact crater but downward penetrator damage and ignition effect. There would system parts all over the place from the weapon.

  23. Babak Makkinejad says:

    These are all the wages of the “Containment of Iran Policy” adopted by the United States and others back in 1993. I do not think “Globalism” has any direct bearing on it.
    Please see below:
    Ambassador Neuman – using the innocuous phraseology “…what must we protect, I would include Israel and our Arabian Peninsula friends” – correctly describes the twin motivations of US Policy – Religious Sentiment and Pocket Book (per MRW’s explanation of reserve currency status of USD).
    By the way, religious considerations are also not far away for the minds of the Gulfies – pushing for their Arab Islam to be dominant in the Levant.
    And Ambassador Freeman goes on to observe that improvement of relations, however desirable for both side, are not in the cards.
    I think it is safe to conclude that US policy as well as EU and Sunni Arabs is the containment of Syrian War but keeping it burning, in the hope of wounding Iran – and now, Russia as well.
    They are still trying to leverage ISIS, unfortunately.
    Since neither Iranian nor Russian leaders are stupid (if they were, they would not have been where they are today), one must surmise that they are aware of this. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Speaker of Iranian Parliament, Larijani, in 2015 estimated another 5 years of war in Syria.
    What astonishes me about US government is that no one is getting fired for any of this. Cameroon at least had the decency of resigning from the Commons.

  24. Chris Chuba says:

    I don’t understand why a humanitarian convoy has to originate in Turkey, travel through rebel held territory, cross Syrian (or Russian checkpoints) and then back into the rebel held part of Aleppo city. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to have the convoy prepared at Latakia so it only crosses govt held territory and into rebel held territory once?
    This would eliminate concerns that the convoy was being used as a Trojan horse to send in weapons and simplify the agreements needed to allow humanitarian aid to proceed. Who came up with this Rube Goldberg solution (rhetorical question, all things stupid seem to originate with my beloved country am I wrong this time?)

  25. kooshy says:

    Missed the related headline by CNN
    “White House: Russia responsible whoever carried out Syria aid convoy strike”

  26. Lemur says:

    thanks for the replies

  27. Lemur says:

    It does in the sense that the US resents any functionally sovereign government other than itself.

  28. Peter says:

    The UN removed its charges against Russia and Syria. It appears Russia was able to prove it wasn’t an airstrike. Looks like it was Obama’s darling rebels after all! Oh how the propaganda backfires!

  29. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    During the last decade and a half of first semi- and now full retirement, I’ve spent a lot of time exploring US history beyond what’s available in the ‘authorized narratives.’ The US has never respected the sovereignty of other countries unless they were in a position to painfully force us to do so.

  30. Ghostship says:

    The convoy originated in Damascus where it loaded up from a UN warehouse, drove through government held territory to Aleppo and then crossed from western Aleppo (city) into the western Aleppo (governorate) which is held by rebels. Having monitored he load the Russians/Syrians knew exactly what was on those trucks so why bomb them when they could have delayed the crossing into rebel territory by a few hours to wait and see what happened with the ceasefire.
    It’s difficult to see what the motive of the Russians or Syrians for bombing the convoy could be. One that might make sense is that the Russians claimed they lost contact with the convoy after it crossed into rebel territory and that some Syrian agent reported the arrival of a suspicious convoy resulting in the attack. US officials are claiming that there were two Russian Su-24s overhead at the time of the attack, so we can exclude Syrian involvement. But after Saturdays windfall, I doubt the Russians would want to jeopardise that advantage by attacking an unknown convoy in an area where a known convoy has just arrived.
    On the other hand, there are far more likely suspects such as Al Nusra and/or other Jihadi/rebel groups, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Saudi and/or Qatari regimes, the White Helmets and the local SARC itself so perhaps I should explain my thinking:
    Al Nusra – If the ceasefire holds they are likely to become targets for the US and Russian air forces and have weapon supplies from the CIA, and from the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish regime cut off, particularly TOWs and MANPADs. With no external borders, they’ll have to rely on what they can capture from the SAA and from other rebel groups – not rich pickings.
    Other Jihadi/rebel groups – they have the same motives as Al Nusra but in addition if they do enter into the ceasefire they’ll lose the cash coming from supporters in the GCC and Al Nusra will attack and either absorb them and their territory or wipe them out.
    Sidebar – the Russians claim they saw on video a rebel pickup towing a large calibre mortar hiding behind the convoy. Maybe they’re misinterpreting that and it was a rebel group delivering a warning to the drivers in the convoy, don’t hang around your trucks tonight because we’re going to attack them. They stop near to one person visible by the convoy, were they delivering a more specific message? Perhaps I’ve seen too many Mafia movies.
    CIAAccording to Jack Murphy’s article, the CIA are focused on removing Assad from power regardless of the consequences so they have every reason to see the ceasefire fail and they’re not unknown for carrying out black ops.
    PentagonThey really don’t want to have to cooperate with the Russians. While this is possible, it’s unlikely because the cost to careers of being caught is too great as Pat says. As for any PBI in Syria, I doubt they’re much bothered providing the Russian don’t bomb them by mistake – each dead jihadi is one less opponent and I’ve not heard of any friendly fire incidents in Syria involving the Russians and the Russians and Syrians have largely stayed away from the YPG/SDF except for that stupidity in Hasakah.
    Saudi and/or Qatari regimes – with their obsession with regime change in Syria, they can’t afford for the Syrian government to go into negotiations following the ceasefire in a strong position, so they want the ceasefire to fail and they, certainly the Saudis, have a history of conducting black ops. abroad.
    White Helmets – one of the reasons they’re so useful to their USG/UKG sponsors is the substantial amount of anti-Assad propaganda they produce, so while I strongly doubt they attacked the convoy, they might well have set it up as a propaganda exercise to discredit the Russian and Syrian governments. Normally, White Helmet propaganda videos include large numbers of “dead” bodies, in the media from this event nothing but some pictures of a man holding some entrails close to a SARC vest(watch @ 2:18 in the video below). So, if the drivers were in on it, there weren’t any bodies. Given the sectarianism of the White Helmets, the claims in one video that it was a Syrian Christian warehouse seems a bit strange as does the detailed knowledge he had of the contents while the trucks were still burning and the claim he made that it took the SAAF (note not the RuAF, see above) eight hours to drop 8 barrel bombs and two cluster bombs even after the SARC had informed the SAAF of what was going on.
    Local SARC – I used to work for a large business information and credit rating company and so learnt about the various types of fraud that criminals use – two that come to mind are long firm fraud (build up over time a good credit record, then order large quantities of stuff to sell on and then disappear) or short firm fraud (just order stuff on credit, sell it on then, disappear). Fraud is not unknown among charities and charity workers, so maybe that is what happened here, the local SARC built up a reputation for delivering supplies successfully until they were trusted with 31 truck loads which they could sell on the black market with the added advantage that the loses can be blamed on the Russians and Syrians and the perpetrators appear to be dead. Is anyone in a position to investigate what was left behind? The day after nobody seemed interested in recovering anything that was still usable. I’m not saying that this is what happened but it’s a possibility.

  31. Chris Chuba says:

    The U.S. is telling our media that Russia is responsible for the convoy bombing and the media sheep are repeating it with the corresponding outrage.
    I suppose that it’s too much for one of these MSM sheep to simply ask, ‘how do you know it was a Russian air attack?’
    1. Does the time and place of the attack correspond with a de-confliction notice? The Russians claim they had no operations.
    2. What do you make of the UN statement re-classifying the nature of the attack as unknown?
    3. Did you track Russian aircraft or inspect the area yourself?
    The problem with having such a compliant media is that it encourages our govt officials to lie even more because they are never shamed and they know that they can get away with it.

  32. The Beaver says:

    @ Peter
    However, Ban Ki Moon, the spineless UNSG came out against Assad. His speech must have been written by Jeffrey Feltmann- it is known at Turtle Bay that quite a few of his speeches are drafted by the office of the USG of Political Affairs. Samantha Power must be working with Feltman.

  33. Gene Poole says:

    “neo-Pravda constellation”? You mean the New York Times and Fox News?

Comments are closed.