ISRAELI airstrikes hit near Damascus airport – Syrian state TV

Israeli airstrikes have hit targets near Damascus International Airport and in the town of Dimas near the Lebanon border, Syrian state TV reports.

"The Israeli enemy committed aggression against Syria by targeting two safe areas in Damascus province, in all of Dimas and near the Damascus International Airport," the report said, adding that there were no casualties.

The airstrikes targeted an arms depot, a source in Syrian army's Joint Staff told Sputnik news agency on Sunday. "The Israeli Air Force have conducted airstrikes on an arms depot, which caused huge blasts near the [Damascus] International Airport," the source said in a phone conversation.

Residents in the Syrian capital said they heard loud explosions.

According toLebanon's Al-Manar television, the Israeli jets bombed areas near the smaller airport at Dimas.

Seems like Israel can't stand still and likes to play with fire. We'll see how that one plays out.

RT

I'll update asap.

a reply to: Hellas
Sorry. Already posted HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Hellas
Sorry. Already posted HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's fine. I'm in Breaking news

This is what happens when you arm ghetto street thugs and let them pretend they are legitimate heads of state...

Same results every time!!

The Israelis targeted what they claimed were sophisticated weapons systems destined for Damascus’ ally, the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon.

Yes it's always clames and false flags when it come to Isreal actions because I hear clames that they are not members of the NNPT and have hundreds of illegal nukes so don't lets get too upset when someone takes them out because they could be dangerious you know.

Let's not pretend we don't know what this is all really about.

The U.S. is bombing Syria to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS' predecessors in Syria. Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's foreign policy than funding groups that turn on the U.S. again and again, a neo-con fueled cycle of profits for war makers and destruction of ever-shifting "enemies."

The fact can't be refuted: ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria. Arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship -- mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events. For example:

A: Ousting former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki for his refusal to consent to the continued presence of U.S. troops in his country.

B: Regime change in Syria.

C: Arming the Kurds so they can separate from Iraq, a preliminary move to partitioning Iraq.

The Real Reason We are Bombing Syria

What a coincidence for war-profiteering neo-cons and the war industry, which has seen its stock rise since last week's congressional vote to fund the rapid expansion of war. We have met the enemy and he isn't only ISIS, he is us.

One wonders if Saudi training of these moderate mercenaries will include methods of beheading which were popularized by the Saudi government long before their ISIS progeny took up the grisly practice.

What does this have to do with the security of the 50 States United? Nothing! The U.S. citizens are being played.

There were alternatives. The U.S. and the international community could have contained and shrunk ISIS by cutting off its funds and its revenue from sale of oil on the black market. We could have looked to strike a deal with Syria and Iran.

In foreign policy, the administration has failed. Congress has failed. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have passed the national checkbook to their patrons in the war contracting business. And passed the bill to future generations.

Also...

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas." When Putin refused, the Saudi Prince vowed military action.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

Syria Intervention Fueled by Oil Interest

originally posted by: Hellas

Israeli airstrikes have hit targets near Damascus International Airport and in the town of Dimas near the Lebanon border, Syrian state TV reports.

"The Israeli enemy committed aggression against Syria by targeting two safe areas in Damascus province, in all of Dimas and near the Damascus International Airport," the report said, adding that there were no casualties.

The airstrikes targeted an arms depot, a source in Syrian army's Joint Staff told Sputnik news agency on Sunday. "The Israeli Air Force have conducted airstrikes on an arms depot, which caused huge blasts near the [Damascus] International Airport," the source said in a phone conversation.

Residents in the Syrian capital said they heard loud explosions.

According toLebanon's Al-Manar television, the Israeli jets bombed areas near the smaller airport at Dimas.

Seems like Israel can't stand still and likes to play with fire. We'll see how that one plays out.

RT

I'll update asap.

There goes Israel, violating Syria's sovereignty AND international law by preemptively striking targets in Syria. That is an act of war.

Assad has been very patient with Israel. But Israel really is playing with fire. By international law Syria would be within full rights to attack Israel.

a reply to: VirusGuard

It's claims not 'clames'. Also, how are nukes 'illegal'?

They have them..."possession is 9/10s of the law".

Anyone claiming they're illegal is spitting upwind...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Really??

Seriously??

The U.S. is bombing in Syria. As is Canada, The Brits. Belgium et al.

If Israel is violating international law then everyone else is too.

So much for credence for international law....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Really??

Seriously??

The U.S. is bombing is Syria. As is Canada, The Brits. Belgium et al.

If Israel is violating international law then everyone else is too.

So much for credence for international law....

Are they bombing ISIS targets in Syria? Sorry, I got so disillusioned after studying this situation for two years that I've checked out a little the past 2 months. Honest question.

But yes, the West violates international law the sovereignty of nations in the ME all of the time. Yes. It makes a mockery of international law. Which isn't good if we one day want to finally transcend the law of the jungle.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No problem.

At least the law of the jungle is reliable...and consistent...

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Let's not pretend we don't know what this is all really about.

The U.S. is bombing Syria to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS' predecessors in Syria. Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's foreign policy than funding groups that turn on the U.S. again and again, a neo-con fueled cycle of profits for war makers and destruction of ever-shifting "enemies."

The fact can't be refuted: ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria. Arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship -- mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events. For example:

A: Ousting former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki for his refusal to consent to the continued presence of U.S. troops in his country.

B: Regime change in Syria.

C: Arming the Kurds so they can separate from Iraq, a preliminary move to partitioning Iraq.

The Real Reason We are Bombing Syria

What a coincidence for war-profiteering neo-cons and the war industry, which has seen its stock rise since last week's congressional vote to fund the rapid expansion of war. We have met the enemy and he isn't only ISIS, he is us.

One wonders if Saudi training of these moderate mercenaries will include methods of beheading which were popularized by the Saudi government long before their ISIS progeny took up the grisly practice.

What does this have to do with the security of the 50 States United? Nothing! The U.S. citizens are being played.

There were alternatives. The U.S. and the international community could have contained and shrunk ISIS by cutting off its funds and its revenue from sale of oil on the black market. We could have looked to strike a deal with Syria and Iran.

In foreign policy, the administration has failed. Congress has failed. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have passed the national checkbook to their patrons in the war contracting business. And passed the bill to future generations.

Also...

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas." When Putin refused, the Saudi Prince vowed military action.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

Syria Intervention Fueled by Oil Interest

i agree with everything but the idea it's just about oil. Controlling energy IS a major facet of foreign policy, but that is just a piece of global hegemony and power.

This 7 countries in five years thing also was meant I believe to knock out one by one all blocks to control of the ME AND to lower the power of any counterweights, such as Russia. Syria and Iran are friends and outposts of Russia in the ME.