- US occupying forces in northern Syria are continuing to plunder natural resources and farmland, a practice ongoing since 2011
- Recently, US troops smuggled dozens of tanker trucks loaded with Syrian crude oil to their bases in Iraq.
- The fuel and convoys of Syrian wheat were transported through the illegal settlement of Mahmoudia.
- Witnesses report a caravan of 69 tankers loaded with oil and 45 with wheat stolen from silos in Yarubieh city.
- Similar acts of looting occurred on the 19th of the month in the city of Hasakeh, where 45 tankers of Syrian oil were taken out by US forces.
- Prior to the war and US invasion, Syria produced over 380 thousand barrels of crude oil per day, but this has drastically reduced to only 15 thousand barrels per day.
- The country’s oil production now covers only five percent of its needs, with the remaining 95 percent imported amidst difficulties due to the US blockade.
- The US and EU blockade prevents the entry of medicines, food, supplies, and impedes technological and industrial development in Syria.
So this article is thin on details and lacking any mention of historical or political context. The only cited sources it has are “witnesses” (unidentified). It’s pretty clearly designed to give the reader a simple impression lacking in nuance or understanding. And in fact, it is a copy of propaganda articles being pushed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry as described in this article by Radio Free Asia. And here is the media bias rating for RFA.
This is a propaganda piece, and it’s a poorly written one that doesn’t even attempt to back up its claims with any other sources or explain the broader context of the conflict in Syria.
Please avoid citing MBFC as a valid source. See my comment above.
The Syrian conflict is 13 years old. It’s ridiculous to expect every article to give you the whole context every time, especially since anything anyone will write about said context will be extremely biased. This conflict had massive misinformation campaigns from all sides.
Evaluate the information for what it is, not for whether it gives you a lecture on the history of the conflict.
SANA is primarily a TV channel, and the articles are usually a summary / transcript of the TV reports. They show videos routinely of the trucks that are very clearly carrying oil through Al-ya’rabiya, which is a border crossing from Syria to Iraq that the US controls.
The source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Arab_News_Agency
https://www.sana.sy/en/?p=329527
This article from SANA is the same. It cites nothing except “local sources” and it’s even shorter. It’s literally a copy of the Chinese Foreign Ministry talking points described by RFA.
It looks like most outlets carrying this story are just re-reporting this one from SANA: https://sana.sy/en/?p=329527
And that seems a bit light on details. And the details it does have seem slanted, like painting the US presence as an occupation, a border crossing as an illegal settlement (I can’t even find any other references to Mahmoudiya in Syria with a quick Google), and the photos just show pictures of random tanker trucks, nothing that would indicate location, direction, contents, or operator.
My sense is that the US is supporting a rebel faction in the Syrian civil war, and the ruling faction (Bashar al-Assad’s) is trying to paint them as the bad guy, for something that may or may not be legitimate, and may or may not even be happening at all. There’s not enough evidence here to draw any conclusions.
Explain to me how it is not. Do they have a UN mandate to be there? No? An invite from the sovereign government body of the land? Neither?
A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. I’m this case, that area is under the control of the SDF.
Who funds and arms the SDF?
The US, for one. If this is supposed to be a gotcha, that makes it a puppet state at best, still not an occupation.
US literally has bases with US troops in Syria. It’s an occupying force.
This is a good, nuanced interpretation of this, thanks for doing the leg work and summarizing it succinctly.
The US is supporting SDF, a primarily Kurdish group. This is no secret, they have been since 2015 against ISIL (you remember, the guys that were posting videos of beheading people on YouTube).
The Kurds have lived in this area for millennia. They have just as much right to the natural resources there as the Assad government, probably more.
Which is why the Navajo Nation controls land that would have otherwise contained the Hoover Dam, if it were not for the rights that the Navajo held to the natural resources there.
Oh, wait.
what definition of occupation does not include the deployment of the US military, which proceeded to build a dozen military bases in a territory of another country, which has continuously made filings to the UN about this occupation?
The definition in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.
🙄
Media Bias “Fact Checking” RFA is the funniest shit.
“Non-profit” without mentioning who founded it, and who funds it now.
There is an About link in the footer that is quite transparent about the founder, funding sources, methodology, etc.
I’m talking about RFA.
Check out the history section, they mention its founding. The current funding seems to be misidentified in this paragraph:
That suggests private donations, but from what I can tell it’s basically just funded by the US government via US Agency for Global Media.
You’re proving my point there buddy.
RFA was created under the directorate of the CIA, and later transfered to the State Department (aka foreign policy influence). The fact that MBFC fails to mention that is huge red flag and shows their own bias.
I swear it’s MBFC’s job to not understand that. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair
If you quote CIA sources, you are the same as Washington monsters. Invalidated immediately.
Regardless of your opinion of RFA, it’s the way this article is written that makes it propaganda. It makes a direct political attack, but it doesn’t actually substantiate any of its claims. You are expected to believe what it tells you and not ask any questions. There are no corroborating sources, no cross references, and not even names of the witnesses they claim to have.
No matter what your political point of view is, you shouldn’t believe anything presented in an article of this quality. It’s an insult to your intelligence. It’s not information, it’s just opinion.
So tired of seeing this.
We need less-censored news forums.