Comments on: A Closer Look at Israel’s Syria Raid

By: Wembley

Wembley — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:10:59 +0000

Enough speculation already. When are you going to start looking at what really happen Do you honestly believe any of that nuke stuff? Seems about as believable as the giants…

By: blowback

blowback — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:06:16 +0000

With German warships off Lebanon and a British airbase and long-distance radar station on Cyprus, any claim that NATO didn’t know about these events is spurious.
If the Germans have any sense (after the USS Liberty attack by the Israelis) then the warships off Lebanon are likely to be Sachsen class air-defense frigates. These are fitted with SMART-L which is probably the most capable long-range radar in the world able to detect aircraft at a range of 750km. For such a warship, located of southern Lebanon, the entire Syrian coast and much of the Turkish coast is within range (news today that radar on UN ships off Lebanon is disrupting Israeli satellite TV is a complete red herring. It is most likely an attempt to shut down the radar so that the Israelis can do what they want without others knowing. The only other interpretation is that the Israelis are worse than Hezbollah at handling satellite TV signals or their disruption. Hezbollah, after all, managed to keep their satellite channel on air throughout the war last year.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:37:18 +0000

I had to go back to my source,Whatdoesitmean.com says that Russia’s “Foreign Intelligence Service” reported that Israel attacked a spaceship full of Giants(God,doesn’t this bring back memories of the golden age of National Enquirer?)

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:49:26 +0000

According to Whatdoesitmean.com the Israelis went into Syria to attack a spaceship full of giants otherwise known as Nephilim(you just can’t make this stuff up,although Whatdoesitmean.com does a good job of trying).Again,according to Whatdoesitmean.com,the Israelis shot at the “UFO” & it went back into outer space.
Come on,everybody is treating the idea of there being a computer program that can interfere with Syrian air defense as if it is just as absurd.

By: b

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:14:19 +0000

/quote
B, that’s a bucket of assumptions there:
–Assuming that accurately depicts the Syrian side of the incident.
–Assuming that the planes Syria “saw” near Cyprus weren’t drones, false returns, or both.
–Assuming the Cyprus planes weren’t tankers, emergency backup, or both.
–Assuming Israel would risk a confrontation with Turkey in a simple move to provoke Syria when there’s ample opportunity to do so without.
–Assuming Israel would abort a raid that had already crossed Turkish airspace on its way to Syria by dropping evidence all over the landscape.
–Assuming Syria would simply hold fire in the face of even a small raid.
–Assuming Syria has less reason to lie/obscure than Israel
Then yes, it possible the raid was a failed attempt to provoke Syria.
/endquote
1. There are some assumptions — not my assumptions, but those of the sources I quoted. You may think they are not credible, but at least they are not some “anonymous officials” who usually put out crap.
2. I don’t get the Turkish involvement here. IAF could fly to Syria via the mediteranian — no Turkey involved. That the shunned external tank barelly landed in Turkey doesn’t mean the planes crossed over to Turkey (even when, inofficially the Turks would not mind) or maybe did so excaping a possible Syrian air defense.
3. I don’t know which side lies here. Most probably both do.
4. The Aviation Week story still stinks. Taking control of a system by manipulating input to a sensor? Not likely at least …

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:54:39 +0000

There is also the simpler answer that Israel’s military had Mossad agents in place to compromise Syria’s air defenses and now are using this Suter/ASEA rumor as a cover for a successful intelligence operation.

By: Moose

Moose — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:42:28 +0000

B, that’s a bucket of assumptions there:
–Assuming that accurately depicts the Syrian side of the incident.
–Assuming that the planes Syria “saw” near Cyprus weren’t drones, false returns, or both.
–Assuming the Cyprus planes weren’t tankers, emergency backup, or both.
–Assuming Israel would risk a confrontation with Turkey in a simple move to provoke Syria when there’s ample opportunity to do so without.
–Assuming Israel would abort a raid that had already crossed Turkish airspace on its way to Syria by dropping evidence all over the landscape.
–Assuming Syria would simply hold fire in the face of even a small raid.
–Assuming Syria has less reason to lie/obscure than Israel
Then yes, it possible the raid was a failed attempt to provoke Syria.

By: b

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:13:14 +0000

“The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions where approaching aircraft can

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:57:39 +0000

And the UAV pictured is probably Israel’s Heron, if the photo in the linked article is accurate. This site also backs up that theory.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:52:00 +0000

Oh yeah,I also found out that that UAV pictured is an IAI Malat Heron TP(Eitan) MALE UAV,also being considered for being an Armed Hunter-Killer UAV by our Air Force.I wonder how many potential purchases of F-22s that would threaten? But then,people would say we could afford this purchase along with F-22s,& yet,feel totally threatened by Suter technology.