Ten killed in Israeli strike on Syrian military targets


#1

The Israeli strikes were made in response to Sunday’s cross-border missile shooting, which killed an Israeli teenager and wounded his father and two other civilians.

The strikes were carried out shortly after midnight. Nine targets belonging to the Syrian military were hit, among them command centers, according to a statement released by the Israel Defense Forces Sp

“The shooting [on Sunday] was a very serious act of provocation, and a continuation of a series of attacks carried out over the past several months against IDF forces throughout the border region, and in this area specifically,” a statement read.

On Sunday, an Israel Defense Forces officer said it was not known whether Syrian government forces or rebels fired the anti-tank missile, though the segment of the border fence where it landed is under rebel control.
haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486

Does Israel hold Damascus responsible even for the actions of rebels, when those rebels are acting on the Syrian side of the border? It makes sense for Syria to be held accountable for controlling its own territory. But would this policy give the insurgents added leverage?


#2

Israel also has 3 teens that have been kidnapped.

I don’t know if it has gotten much coverage here or not.


#3

Remember that this whole thing started with U.S. encourging and supporting the uprisings in Egypt and Lybia. We are the cause of this whole mess.

Linus2nd


#4

Yes this is a result of Obama’s foreign policy.


#5

I am not sure. Certainly it is a worthy news item, if you wish to start a discussion about it. However, I don’t think the kidnapping is related to the Syrian army or even the rebels. The teens were kidnapped in the West Bank, which does not share a border with Syria.


#6

Possibly, although the Israeli military has determined that the culprit of the Syrian attack was actually a soldier in the Syrian army.

The Israeli strike on nine Syrian military installations and positions overnight came after the IDF concluded that the missile that killed 15-year-old Mohammad Karkara was fired by a Syrian soldier. The possibility that it was an Hezbollah operation is seemingly considered less likely, as is the idea that it was fired by a member of the Syrian opposition.
timesofisrael.com/pinned-by-isil-assad-may-let-israeli-reprisal-pass-quietly/

The motives of the Syrian soldier are unknown. Was he a rogue “lone wolf?” Was he paid by the Syrian opposition? Assuming the attack was not Syrian policy, I don’t think Assad will respond to the Israeli strike. Israel has launched more punitive strikes, which Damascus endured without reprisal. On the other hand, perhaps Assad feels he is in a more secure position now, giving him greater leeway for action.


#7

Wasn’t a teen killed in a syrian strike into Israel?


#8

Yes, 15-year-old Mohammad Karkara. His father was also seriously wounded. They were under a civilian contract to build a fence to protect Israel’s border.


#9

The Syrian government’s response, so far, has been muted.

It said the attack was a “flagrant violation” of Syrian sovereignty, but in a departure from previous incidents when Israeli warplanes struck targets in Syria, the government did not vow retaliation.

Israel’s prime minister on Monday warned the warring parties in Syria against any attempt to heat up tensions along the disputed frontier, hours after the Israeli air force carried out a string of airstrikes in Syria in response to the attack, which killed an Israeli teenager riding in a civilian vehicle.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would respond with even tougher force if there are any further attacks.

Israeli security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to talk to the media, said they did not expect the situation to escalate immediately but that it remains tense. Much would depend on Syria’s response to the Israeli airstrikes, they said.
timesofisrael.com/syria-says-4-killed-in-israeli-strike-but-mum-on-response/

There is some concern that Hezbollah, or others, will open an offensive. They may try to exploit the current situation in which thousands of Israeli troops are busy searching for the three kidnapped teenagers.


#10

Israel is upset because the UN said they are not even sure it is a kidnapping.


#11

It’s hard to believe war between Israel and Muslims is going to be long in coming.

Iranian Hezbollah, its ally, the Syrian government, and various rebel groups are all contending for control of Syria. ISIS in Iraq and Iran are contending for control of Iraq. Almost no matter who wins, the winner will target Israel.

It’s such a mess. We controlled Iraq and the factions were at peace. Obama pulled out. Then he knocked Libya over for no reason at all, turning it into another battleground for radicals. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Al Sisi and now, strange to behold, John Kerry goes over to ask Al Sisi for some kind of help in and for an Iraq we, ourselves, abandoned. He aided Iran against the Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq and now he seems to think they have forgotten how they were betrayed by him. Virtually everything Obama has done has supported Islamic radicals and aimed at thwarting their enemies. One is tempted to think he actually likes Islamic radicalism for some reason, because it’s hard to imagine him being so stupid as to not know what he was/is doing, though one hopes he is merely stupid or blinded by a foolish ideology he learned as a young radical himself.

Whatever it is, it’s an indescribable mess. Given the terrible decisions of the past, it’s hard to imagine that he could, at this late hour, come up with anything other than another blunder.


#12

Um… the Iraqis didn’t want us there. President Bush was unable to negotiate a treaty which allowed us to stay. In fact, he negotiated us a treaty which required us to leave. Obama did nothing more than honor Bush’s treaty.

Dude, are you unfamiliar with Muammar Gaddafi? How can you say that? He supported terrorist organizations across north African and in the middle east…


#13

What I want to know is why they attacked Syrian government forces when they have no idea whether or the originating attack came from Syrian government forces or rebels. It seems to be unjust to attack the Syrian government forces when they don’t know for sure if the Syrian government forces are the ones responsible for the original attack or not.


#14

I am from lebanon but my dad’s family is from syria. Don’t say that what is going on there is caused by america, because it’s not. What is going in syria is caused by muslims. Sunni muslims wants to force the sunni law on the country, and shia muslims wants to force the shia law on the country, so they fight each other and ofcourse like always arab christians are getting killed for nothing. Thanks god i escaped all that evil part of the world.
In middle east theres cancer called islam, in america theres cancer called atheism.


#15

Dude? I think that’s the first time I have been accused of being a “dude”. :rolleyes:

Bush and Maliki agreed to our troop status by presidential agreement. That was due to expire or be renewed. Maliki offered the same thing to Obama. Obama insisted that the Iraqi parliament had to agree. Maliki knew he couldn’t get that done, politically. So Obama walked away.

Regardless, did you not hear Obama say his real reason wasn’t the SOFA, it was keeping 10,000 or more people in Iraq? Obama blames Maliki now, but that wasn’t his reason back in 2011.

Khaddafi was an odious man. All the same, he was aiding U.S. intelligence. The Islamists were his enemies as well as ours. This administration could not have failed to know the rebels in the eastern part of Libya were radical Islamists. In warring on the government of Libya by his unilateral decision, Obama guaranteed the arming of those radicals as well as their control of eastern Libya.

So now Obama is going to use our forces to aid the Iranian mullahs? What is the foreign policy here?


#16

100% agree.


#17

Ridgerunner, I apologize for that. I am ashamed that I used such dismissive language. It was rude, unnecessary and detracted from the conversation. I am sorry to have said that to you.

As for US foreign policy, I am inclined to agree that it has been muddled in recent years.


#18

I don’t hold it against you. However, I cannot resist saying (tongue in cheek) that around here, (except among the very young) a “dude” is a person who doesn’t know his way around cattle, and is usually dressed inappropriately when he tries to fake the role. I’ll have you know that I DO know my way around cattle and dress as utilitarian/shabbily as any cowman does in that process. :wink:


#19

I’m over 50 and have two buddies over 60 who call me dude.


#20

Well, either you live in a place where youngster slang has been adopted by older people, or you live in cattle country and might take umbrage at them calling you that.:wink:

But even among the young, it can be a friendly or an unfriendly term, depending on how it’s used. It’s sort of like the “B” word among some segments of women or the “N” word among blacks.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.