Yeah, US special forces incursions usually use a helicopter that can actually carry a reasonable amount of troops, not an attack helicopter.
You may have no air defences to the east of Syria, but i'm failing to see why that's relevant, someone earlier suggested that could be a ploy to keep peoples attention elsewhere which makes sense. If a building suddenly gets too many pointy things around it people get suspicious.
Ok, so lets say that the helicopter incursion did occur (which when you consider there is no evidence to substantiate this is a little slim to say the least) that the US planted radioactive material in a regular facility (which was conveniently constructed to meet the requirements of a nuclear reactor with all the associated infrastructure) just to allow Israel to attack Syria to "uncover syria avanced a/d network" which you just said is non-existent in the east.
I do believe Israel could and did pull this off, they have the capability to do so (and have done 1 similar mission before - at least i think it's only 1) and as you have confirmed there is very little in the terms of air defences. Either that or Syria blew up their own facility which they were keeping secret, i mean if they wanted people to know they had nuclear facilities there are better ways to go around doing that.
About why Syria didn't respond, i'd have thought that was obvious. They never admitted they were building a nuclear facility and it was a secret affair, something they tried to cover up. This was also insinuated in the IAEA report.
So the first thing Syria did after the attack was gut the facility (whilst covering it from aerial reconnaisance), kept what worked and destroyed/buried what didn't and eventually bulldozed the building itself. Looks like they were hiding something to me.
Last edited:
