September 6, 2007

Syria Fires At Israeli Planes

The Syrian government announced this morning that it had fired at Israeli military planes that had violated its airspace. So far, the BBC has not reported a response to this announcement from Israeli government or military sources:

Syria says its air defences have opened fire on Israeli war planes which had entered Syrian airspace.

The action took place "without causing human or material loss", according to the official Syrian news agency, SANA.

The agency says Israeli jets entered Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean Sea heading northeast at dawn on Thursday, but were forced to leave.

This sounds a little fishy. Why would Israeli military jets overfly Syria from the Mediterranean -- and especially heading northeast? Where would they be going, Iraq or Turkey? Neither nation would have given them an especially friendly aloha. The pilots would have to have been seriously lost to have flown such a mission.

Besides the skepticism over the description of the flights, one has to wonder why Syria would announce that they can't hit two planes flying in an isolated mission over their territory. What purpose does that serve, except to point out their inability to protect their own airspace?

More on this as it develops.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/12609

Comments (27)

Posted by Cybrludite | September 6, 2007 7:06 AM

Perhaps to make Ahmadinnerjacket a bit more nervous?

Posted by skydaddy | September 6, 2007 7:54 AM

Training for the strike on Iran. Testing the waters, as it were.

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 7:59 AM

"...they can't hit two planes flying in an isolated mission over their territory..."

This may have happened in a matter of minutes. Syria did not hit the military planes, but at least they did something. Flight 77, a commercial airliner piloted by amateurs, flew around for 40 minutes and the US was unable to do anything about it.

Posted by John Steele | September 6, 2007 8:15 AM

"...Flight 77, a commercial airliner piloted by amateurs, flew around for 40 minutes and the US was unable to do anything about it."

A) In general the US does not arbitrarily open fire on civilian aircraft without clear provocation. B) There is a big difference between 'unable' and 'unwilling.' C) Cheap shot, unless of course you actually beleive that Syria and the US are moral equivilents.

Posted by Kim | September 6, 2007 8:39 AM

skydaddy

You are so right. The IDF has been training for many. many months for the mission to Iran. Shhh..don't tell anybody. LOL

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 8:47 AM

John Steele:
“In general the US does not arbitrarily open fire on civilian aircraft without clear provocation.”

When multiple planes are hijacked, and two of them crash into major buildings, I call that a clear provocation. What do you call it? What more do you need to label something a "clear provocation"? Instead of firing on Flight 77, did we just want to “talk them down” instead of firing on it? Did we think they would change their mind?

“unless of course you actually beleive that Syria and the US are moral equivilents.”

I do not believe there is a moral equivalence between the US and Syria. The US is obviously a rogue state, and a morale equivalent does not exist outside of Israel.

Posted by Emperor Alexius | September 6, 2007 9:13 AM

Dave:

Thanks for providing us insight into the radical islamist's of view.


Elif air ab dinikh !

Posted by Cletus | September 6, 2007 9:35 AM

FYI, Isreal and Turkey have in the past had an agreement that Isreali aircraft could train in Turkish airspace, because Isreal simply doesn't have enough room for certain types of training. I don't know if this is still in effect, but it has been the case before.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 6, 2007 10:30 AM

Dave said,


I do not believe there is a moral equivalence between the US and Syria. The US is obviously a rogue state, and a morale equivalent does not exist outside of Israel.

Rogue: a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel.

Dave may have something here -- look at what we did in Vietnam.

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 10:34 AM

unclesmrgol:
That's really cool how you put that bar in front of my quote. How did you do that?

Posted by Ripper | September 6, 2007 10:40 AM

I would not believe anything the Syrians and their leader, the Chinless Opthamologist say. They can give George Costanza lessons in lying.

Posted by Ripper | September 6, 2007 11:01 AM

The Corner summarizes the non event best

Drudge has affixed his police siren to this Jerusalem Post story, which details Syrian claims that Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace last night, dropped unspecified munitions on unspecified targets, and were chased out by anti-aircraft fire. The Israeli response, at least the public one, has been the expression of befuddlement at the claims. Little is known about this story right now — it could be true, it might be partially true, or it might be a total fabrication on the part of the Syrians, who do not have what one could call a reputation for honesty in these matters. My IDF contacts said they knew nothing of the incident. The long and short of it is that the people who know what did or did not happen aren't speaking publicly about it. Given the tensions on the Israeli-Syrian border over the summer, this incident is cause for concern, but I'm skeptical that it deserves full-hype treatment at the moment.

Posted by NahnCee | September 6, 2007 11:12 AM

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 10:34 AM

unclesmrgol:
That's really cool how you put that bar in front of my quote. How did you do that?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And with dave, we're can be certain that it's very little knowledge.

Posted by NahnCee | September 6, 2007 11:17 AM

Dave, I wonder if you could tell me whether you think up these scenario's all by your little self, or if you go to the fever swamps inhabited by moonbats escaped from the mother ship to see what the latest spin is, and then scurry to this blog to repeat them?

Posted by Dan | September 6, 2007 11:35 AM

"Cheap shot, unless of course you actually beleive that Syria and the US are moral equivilents."

Syria, like the US, understands one of the hallmarks of international law is that every nation has the right to self defense. If these overflights happened, then at the very least they're an act of aggression.

Posted by filistro | September 6, 2007 11:35 AM

I, too, would very much like to know how you put that little bar beside a quote.

Posted by Mark F. | September 6, 2007 11:55 AM

little dave, the terrorists on 9/11 disabled the transponders on the planes. With our extremely crowded airspace, just how was anyone supposed to determine, quickly, where they were? Syrian airspace is pretty empty, and they are on a conventional war footing at all times. The situations aren't remotely comparable.

Posted by Gus | September 6, 2007 1:52 PM

It is very logical that this could have been an IAF surveillance flight over northern Syrian military targets. It is not uncommon for the IAF to overfly Syria when doing recon. This time, they may have been fired on and spit their fuel tanks to egress faster (which would account for the dropped equipment).

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 1:57 PM

Mark F:
"little dave, the terrorists on 9/11 disabled the transponders on the planes. With our extremely crowded airspace, just how was anyone supposed to determine, quickly, where they were?"

So all another country has to do is not have transponders on their mililtary planes and they're free to attack? That's scary. I thought we had radar as well. 40 minutes is a lot longer than quickly.

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 2:18 PM

unclesmrgol:
Please tell me your secret

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 4:03 PM

unclesmrgol


La la la la la la la la

Hooray!!!!


filistro:
View the web page as "source" and look at the HTML tag he used. It is just "blockquote" in brackets. I guess you have to do it manualy...

Posted by Achillea | September 6, 2007 4:41 PM

I know how!

Posted by Tom W. | September 6, 2007 4:52 PM

The U.S. is criticized because on a day of unprecedented confusion and tragedy, the armed forces didn't immediately shoot down a commercial airliner.

But Syria--a nation which murders Lebanese politicians and civlians with impunity, oppresses its own citizens, and sends suicide bombers into Iraq to murder Iraqi civilians by the thousands--is admired for how quickly it reacted to an alleged Israeli incursion.

Liberalism is truly a mental illness.

Posted by Mark F. | September 6, 2007 5:52 PM

little dave, you exhibit monumental ignorance in the area of air traffic control, the high density of commercial airliners in commercial flight corridors, the similarity of radar image between commercial jets, versus military ones, the heavily monitored vectors enemy aircraft would take, and the number of fighter aircraft that are ready to scramble in case of an emergency. We don't have hundreds of trigger-happy jet jockeys shadowing almost every airliner in the country, just waiting for a chance to shoot something down. Forty minutes is nothing when the task is to get a couple of pilots out of the ready room, into their fighters, take off, then try to sort out the hijacked airliners from the rest, all traveling in busy corridors. You also have to remember that no one knew where AA 77 was heading, what the target was.

Posted by dave | September 6, 2007 8:44 PM

Achillea:

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Posted by Ripper | September 7, 2007 8:25 AM

Dan
"Syria, like the US, understands one of the hallmarks of international law is that every nation has the right to self defense. If these overflights happened, then at the very least they're an act of aggression."

Since when does Syria (a brutal fascist police state that kills Lebanese politicians and tortures its own people) have any regard for international law?

Posted by Dave80 | September 7, 2007 4:10 PM

Dan:

"Since when does Syria (a brutal fascist police state that kills Lebanese politicians and tortures its own people) have any regard for international law?"

When it suits their case, of course. Just as with CAIR and free speech here in the US.

Post a comment