09:10 GMT +311 December 2016
Live
    Turkish Army vehicles and tanks wait near the Syrian border in Suruc on February 23, 2015

    Turkish Artillery Shells Latakia Province, Casualties Reported - Damascus

    © AFP 2016/ ILYAS AKENGIN
    Middle East
    Get short URL
    576283963

    Turkish artillery on Monday shelled a small town in Syria's northern Latakia province inflicting casualties among civilians, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said.

    DAMASCUS (Sputnik) — Earlier in the day, Lebanese Al Mayadeen TV channel reported that one Syrian serviceman was killed and five others were wounded in a shelling from the Turkish territory.

    "The Turkish authorities are responsible for artillery shelling of the town of Jabal Oteira in northern Latakia, which caused casualties among peaceful civilians," the ministry said in statement as quoted by official SANA news agency.

    Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry said Monday that it obtained video proof of Syrian civilian areas being shelled from Turkish border posts.

    The Russian Defence Ministry expects an explanation from NATO, Pentagon and Turkish Armed Forces on the incident. The correspoding statement was made on Monday by the Ministry's spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

    According to the spokesman, the Ministry of Defense recently received the video footage from the Syrian General Staff which shows "self-propelled heavy artillery weapons deployed at the Turkish outpost in question."

    Related:

    Turkey Denies Use of Syrian Refugee Child Labor in Textile Factories
    Turkey Shells Civilian Homes on Syrian Border, Russian MoD Has Video Proof
    Moscow: Syria Talks Unaffected by Turkey's Claims of Airspace Violation
    Tags:
    casualties, shelling, Turkey, Syria
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment
    • vendorin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, we need to see a bigger attack. This is not even a provocation.
    • vendorin reply tojas(Show commentHide comment)
      jas, Turkey is throwing a bait. This is nothing. I am in favour of these attacks but they need to be larger, much larger.
    • vendorin reply tosiberianhusky(Show commentHide comment)
      siberianhusky, not yet.
    • vendorin reply tobackfromthegraav(Show commentHide comment)
      backfromthegraav, why people want to nuke immediately they see a threat?
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, no potential there.The West can not finance it. What we need to see is a larger Turkish attack.
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, cannot finance what? I don't think you know what you are talking about!
      Besides a world war would be a nuclear war!
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, war, Hans. The west can not afford or finance a big war, Hans. And a nuclear war would happen like many nuclear wars of the past. Lol Do you know what you are talking about? If I have let's say 5,000 war heads, and you have 5,000 war heads, would you hit me once, or would you keep hitting me? Do you expect I would wait for you to use up all 5,000? Contemplate on that for a while before you start talking nuclear wars :)
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, i don't think you understand the concept of War. It sounds like you think it is some kind of game.
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, how about you teach me by explaining what is it? :)
    • goaismine
      well take it as it is - this is not looking good - turkey is trying to make points
      or in a worst-case start a war with syria
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, well in war all means are taken into use, top down. So if Russia and the US or NATO end up at war with each other there will be no real conventional war, but it will be nuclear as the one who strikes first has the advantage.
      Of course that is also why they don't go to war with each other, but a situation can escalate where an incident triggers a reaction and so on.

      And since Turkey is a NATO country.. if they do things that make them at war with Russia, as when they shot down that plane, which was a clear act of war, then by implication NATO means the US and there you go. So it is very dangerous.
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, fascinating. Can you tell me now how a ballistic missile fired by the USA would hit any target in Russia?
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, don't be ridiculous!
      ICBM's have ranges over 5000 km and then you have submarines with ICBM's, so called SLBM's with the same range. Do you know where there is US submarines?
      Besides what do you know of what the US has on all their bases around?
      Basically both sides can destroy each other with ICBM's.
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, well I have done some reading on that as my homework to learn this lecture you have been giving me but can you now tell me what kind of defence systems the Russians have to intercept those ICBMs you have mentioned? I am sure you know that too. :)
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, really if you think that any missile defence system, even a top fit s500 system will be able to stop an attack if it came to that, then you are for sure deluded! Tactical nuclear missiles can take out any defence systems. Remember you need functional radar to even have a chance to intercept am ICBM and tactical nukes can take them out.
      And the real range of ICBM's are for sure around 8000-10000km. Then there is the matter of what speed they come, where defence systems will have problems even sending a missile that can reach the speed of the ICBM, and thus not much chance of taking it out.
      I think that the s400 and s500 systems are great for defence against fighter jets and so on, but really there is no thing that will stop a full onslaught. And i wouldn't rely on EMP either. Deterrence is still the best option.

      But we need to make sure it never comes to such a situation!
    • vendorin reply tohans.schultz(Show commentHide comment)
      hans.schultz, who is talking about s400 and s500? What are you babbling? Now, teach me more :)
    • hans.schultzin reply tovendor(Show commentHide comment)
      vendor, really your attitude is childish! But i can say for sure that whatever someone comes up with if it is laser defence or something else, there is a counter and stopping a whole lot of ICBM's you cannot.
      Bottom line is whatever you say, nobody should ever want those ICBM's flying on earth! End of discussion!
    • Baybarsin reply tobackfromthegraav(Show commentHide comment)
      backfromthegraav, It is not just the U.S. which drives NATO. You will have to level the cities of London, Berlin and Brussels along with Washington. Have fun!
    • Baybarsin reply tosiberianhusky(Show commentHide comment)
      siberianhusky, Exactly! The occupiers of Palestine bomb Jordan and Lebanon all the time for much less of a reason.
    • Baybarsin reply toJet fuel can't melt steel beams(Show commentHide comment)
      Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, Blackmailed
    Show new comments (0)