Talk:January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike

SA-8

It should be mentioned, that the video broadcast showed SA-8, not SA-17. Flayer (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Amir Rapaport, editor and publisher of the magazine Israel Defense, said that the video broadcast Saturday on Syrian television showed an armored vehicle that seemed to belong to the SA-8 missile system. He suggested that the Syrians may have put the SA-8s at the scene after the fact because they had promised the Russians not to transfer newer SA-17s to Lebanon. http://missilethreat.com/israeli-strike-into-syria-said-to-damage-research-site/

I agree, but "He suggested that the Syrians may have put the SA-8s at the scene after the fact", meaning the video was possibly faked. Marokwitz (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't know what was the real target of the attack, we don't know whether the video was faked or not, but one thing we know for sure - the video showed SA-8, not SA-17. Flayer (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But the article currently doesn't even mention the video. In context of the video, this is a relevant fact. In all other places, we need to stick with what reliable sources say. Marokwitz (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I Agree. Flayer (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

real target?

Could the real target be the research centre. The SAM systems might have been targetted to enable an attack on the research centre!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The research centre looks perfectly intact for an air raid. Flayer (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

expanding article

since the Airstrike this article is about was just the first of a series of attacks, it probaly make sense, to change the subject of this article away from the january-Airstrike alone to the subject of Israeli Airstrikes while Syrian Civil war in general. Therefore I propose, to expand this article into this more general topic, or creating such an article with this article as one of the Incidents listed there. --134.91.40.4 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict scope

Iranit, are there any sources that label this incident as "Arab-Israeli conflict"? I haven't seen a single one, on the contrary - it is put as part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict. In addition, Syria is factually out of the Arab League, and their seat is taken by opposition. Even considering IAF indeed is responsible for the event (which is not 100% certain yet), the incident WAS NOT between Israel and the Arab League (where Syrian opposition is now seated).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. (Sorry for the inconvenience first). True, but there is no element to discard this article from belonging to wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, it's under 1RR restriction like all ARBPIA articles. It was an allegedly Israeli attack on a long-standing enemy: Arab Republic of Syria. An Arab country is not defined by its membership to the Arab League. Are we agreed?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranit, you are engaging in synthesis - you are taking two facts (Israel was in war with Syria & war with Syria was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict), and make a third assumption - that current incident is also a part of AI conflict. the Arab-Israeli conflict is defined as "the conflict between Israel and the Arab League". Period.

Considering that in fact Syrian Assad government is fighting the Arab League seated Syrian opposition, it in fact makes the Arab Republic of Syria an enemy of the Arab League. You can of course see what an absurd is to include an incident between Syrian Assad government (or their allies - Hizbullah+Iran) and Israel in January 2013 as part of the AI-conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Israeli involvement?

Is that a joke? Almost all sources state clearly that Israel did attack Syria. Can someone explain, why it is 'alleged'? Just because Israel did not confirm? Come on! --Emesik (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any proof? Flayer (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of proof do you need? Ehud Barak explaining the motives, U.S. officials saying Israel did it, absence of other force capable of such strike and willing to do it, cui bono — is that not enough? The most important reason is that sources say it was Israeli strike. And we should follow the sources. --Emesik (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Still an alleged act. See as example the 2013 Reyhanlı bombings, where the pro-Syrian organization was an alleged perpetrator, but still due proof and responsibility.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ask: What do you consider as a proof? --Emesik (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Proof" is evidence material provided to UN by Syrian government. Just allegation is not enough, because often Israel is automatically accused and sometimes even ridiculously, like allegedly sending sharks and vultures to spy on Arab countries. If Israel officially admits - that also works out (like Operation Opera); regarding Operation Orchard i would tend to agree that Israel "semi-admitted" as well.

You are very emotional on this, since in your subjective view Israeli role is obvious. However, objectively there is still a reasonable possibility that another party was behind the Rif Dimashq attack in January (and also May). Hezbollah and Iran have enough enemies in the West, including even Turkey and some of the Arab League countries also have the means and intentions to disrupt Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah alliance. Israel is very convenient to be considered "responsible", thus they don't deny or confirm; but that doesn't explicitly say they are indeed the attackers. This is a clear case of WP:ATT (see Wikipedia:Attribution).Greyshark09 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many secondary reliable sources which say straight it was Israeli attack. Examples here: [1] [2] The second one even explains how the strike was performed.

I haven't encountered any source naming another possible perpetrator. If you have, I'd be happy to see it. Without going too deep into WP:OR, I'd say that neither Turkey nor the Gulf States were capable of performing a strike within Syrian airspace.

If we need hard, undeniable evidence, perhaps the word alleged should be added here? There is still a reasonable possibility that it was an insider job and the evidence published is not very convincing. --Emesik (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the Sep. 11 attackers went under trial and were found guilty.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Did they walk away from the rubble to testify? Or you mean fair trials of Osama and those who spent holidays at Gitmo resort? --Emesik (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)