Fact Check: First church attack in years shocks Syria's Christian community.

Fact Check: First church attack in years shocks Syria's Christian community.

Published June 23, 2025
VERDICT
True

# Fact Check: "First church attack in years shocks Syria's Christian community." ## What We Know On June 22, 2025, a suicide bomber attacked the Mar ...

Fact Check: "First church attack in years shocks Syria's Christian community."

What We Know

On June 22, 2025, a suicide bomber attacked the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Dweila, a neighborhood of Damascus, during a service, resulting in at least 20 deaths and over 50 injuries (New York Times, Washington Post). This incident is significant as it marks the first known suicide bombing in the capital since December 2024, following the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad by a rebel coalition (Reuters, CNN). The assailant reportedly opened fire on congregants before detonating an explosive vest, and authorities have suggested that the attacker had ties to the Islamic State group, which has been known to target religious minorities in Syria (Al-Monitor, RTÉ).

Witnesses described a chaotic scene, with body parts scattered and a large number of casualties among churchgoers, including children (Washington Post, CNN). The Syrian Interior Ministry confirmed that the attack was carried out by an individual who entered the church and opened fire before detonating explosives, which aligns with multiple eyewitness accounts (New York Times, Al-Monitor).

Analysis

The claim that this attack is the first of its kind in years is supported by multiple credible sources. The New York Times and the Washington Post both highlight that this incident is unprecedented in the context of recent attacks on Christian sites in Syria, particularly following the political changes in the country (New York Times, Washington Post). The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights corroborated the death toll, although there were slight discrepancies in the numbers reported by different outlets (Washington Post, CNN).

The reliability of these sources is generally high. The New York Times and Washington Post are well-established news organizations with a history of rigorous reporting, while Al-Monitor and RTÉ also provide reputable coverage of Middle Eastern affairs. However, it is important to note that local media reports may vary in their accounts of the event, particularly concerning the number of attackers and the specifics of the attack, which can sometimes lead to confusion (Al-Monitor, CNN).

The context of the attack is critical; it occurs in a country still grappling with the aftermath of a prolonged civil war and the rise of extremist groups. The Syrian government's efforts to stabilize the region and reassure minority communities are further complicated by such violent incidents, which can exacerbate sectarian tensions (New York Times, RTÉ).

Conclusion

The claim that the church attack in Syria is the first of its kind in years is True. The evidence from multiple reliable sources confirms that this suicide bombing is unprecedented in recent history, particularly in the context of attacks on Christian communities in Syria. The implications of this attack are significant, highlighting ongoing security challenges in the region and the potential for increased sectarian violence.

Sources

  1. Twenty killed in suicide bombing at Damascus church
  2. Syria Church Bombing Kills at Least 20 in Damascus
  3. Suicide bomber kills at least 22 in Greek Orthodox church ...
  4. Suicide bomber attack on church in Syria kills at least 20 people
  5. More than 20 killed in suicide attack on Damascus church
  6. Attack on Damascus church kills at least 22

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
Vance you flip flop faster than
pages in the Bible. You talk a
big game about Christian values
but you support closing the
border, deporting refugees,
separating immigrant families,
even building detention camps.
You treat faith like a
political tool. One day you use
it to oppose same sex marriage.
The next you use it to justify
expansionism. On Sunday you're
on your knees in church. On
Monday you're backing Trump's
America first agenda. In the of
traditional family, you support
00:32
cutting aid for the poor. In
the name of border security,
you support violent enforcement
against asylum seekers. That's
not defending values that's
wrapping cruelty in scripture.
You say it's about protecting
the country but I remember
Jesus talked about welcoming
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Vance you flip flop faster than pages in the Bible. You talk a big game about Christian values but you support closing the border, deporting refugees, separating immigrant families, even building detention camps. You treat faith like a political tool. One day you use it to oppose same sex marriage. The next you use it to justify expansionism. On Sunday you're on your knees in church. On Monday you're backing Trump's America first agenda. In the of traditional family, you support 00:32 cutting aid for the poor. In the name of border security, you support violent enforcement against asylum seekers. That's not defending values that's wrapping cruelty in scripture. You say it's about protecting the country but I remember Jesus talked about welcoming

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Vance you flip flop faster than pages in the Bible. You talk a big game about Christian values but you support closing the border, deporting refugees, separating immigrant families, even building detention camps. You treat faith like a political tool. One day you use it to oppose same sex marriage. The next you use it to justify expansionism. On Sunday you're on your knees in church. On Monday you're backing Trump's America first agenda. In the of traditional family, you support 00:32 cutting aid for the poor. In the name of border security, you support violent enforcement against asylum seekers. That's not defending values that's wrapping cruelty in scripture. You say it's about protecting the country but I remember Jesus talked about welcoming

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check:  ICE just received $45 billion in funding for the next 4 years - more than the U.S. government spent on immigration detention during the Obama, Biden, and first Trump administrations Combined
True

Fact Check: ICE just received $45 billion in funding for the next 4 years - more than the U.S. government spent on immigration detention during the Obama, Biden, and first Trump administrations Combined

Detailed fact-check analysis of: ICE just received $45 billion in funding for the next 4 years - more than the U.S. government spent on immigration detention during the Obama, Biden, and first Trump administrations Combined

Jul 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
Are Trump's approval ratings in
the tank? Let's check it out. I
mean every politician would
like this number here
especially to see it go up. How
about compared to other
presidents who are Republicans?
Yeah. It's history making. It's
history making. What are we
talking about here? So why
don't we look back? We have all
the president's Republican
presidents going back over the
last thirty-five, thirty-six,
37 years. What are we talking
about? GOP who strongly
approved 5 months in. Look at
this. George, HW Bush, Bush
forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three,
fifty you see Trump the first
00:31
term 53, but look at this 63%
he beats all the other
Republicans on the board here
and I was looking even back
since Reagan and get this
Donald Trump beats Ronald
Reagan when it comes to the
strongly approved five months
and of course Reagan was coming
off that high after that
assassination attempt so the
bottom line is Donald Trump is
making history with the
Republican base he is more
beloved by this Republican base
than any Republican base loved
any GOP president 5 months in.
It is history making. Even CNN
01:03
is telling the truth. Feels
like hell might be freezing
over.
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
I cannot believe that Trump is
cutting Medicaid. Actually,
what I meant to say is that I
can't believe he's not cutting
more of it because medicaid is
a money laundering scheme for
your government.
Congratulations all you
bleeding heart democrats.
Instead of raging against the
machine, you're bending over
for it. Medicaid is jointly run
by the states and the feds and
for every one dollar that your
state allocates to the program,
the Feds turn around and match
that at a level of one 00
percent so one dollar up to
nine dollars. And this money
comes from taxpayers in other
00:34
states. Your money has a 900%
return rate at someone else's
expense. Why wouldn't you
expand the program? Thanks
Obama. That's exactly how we
wound up with way too many
Medicaid recipients in the
first place. Like everything
related to healthcare the
providers are in bed with the
government on this one too
because the government can tax
the providers. 1. Use that
dollar to collect the up to
nine dollars in federal funds
and to reimburse the provider
their original dollar. What?
Robbing the taxpayer to pad the
funding pool leading to
increase reimbursements for
01:06
Medicaid for the providers.
Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a
health care facility, I'm
saying sign me up to that. Yes,
the medical industrial complex
totally has your best interest
in mind so go ahead and swallow
up those vaccines like a good
little comrade. Age me harder
daddy. And speaking of
comrades, do you know how many
people in this country receive
Medicaid that shouldn't? Before
you start screaming, everyone
should get free health care.
Not the argument here. We do
not have universal health care
in the United States. It
doesn't work and since we don't
have it, that means someone is
paying for it and guess what?
There are lower-income families
01:37
who don't qualify for the
benefits but they're taxpayers
and they're being burdened by
this. Back to the point which
is that the system is insanely
abused. I used to do child
support referee work for years
and you would v
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →