PDA

View Full Version : Looks like we're going to war with Syria...




tangent4ronpaul
05-04-2013, 07:16 AM
Israel Bombs Syria as the U.S. Weighs Its Own Options
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/israel-syria.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Israeli aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as American officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

...

“There are a lot of options on the table, and they’re generally carrying equal weight at the moment,” a senior administration official said Friday. He declined to discuss the others, though Mr. Hagel talked on Thursday about arming rebel groups

So far, President Obama has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out placing American forces on the ground, a stance he reiterated on Friday at a new conference in San José, Costa Rica, where he was meeting with Latin American leaders.

Mr. Obama told reporters he did not foresee a situation in which “American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria,” adding that he had consulted with leaders in the Mideast who agree.

When asked in recent days whether recent evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria crossed the “red line” he set in August, Mr. Obama described questions he would need to have answered — including when and how chemical weapons were used — before he would take action. Even then, he made clear, he may choose something well short of military action.

By Israeli estimates, Syria has 15 to 20 major chemical weapons sites, many near airfields that would make transport by plane relatively easy. Military planners say they would want to avoid hitting the chemicals for fear of creating toxic sites that could injure or kill civilians.

Ideally, one American commander said, the stockpiles would be surrounded, protected and then incinerated, much as the United States has done with its chemical arsenal. But that takes years, and as one official said, “We don’t have years, and we can’t keep troops there.”

That is why attacking the delivery systems seems like the next best option to many in the administration. Israel was believed to be behind an attack on some Syrian missiles in February as they were about to be transported, presumably to Hezbollah. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers that a Hezbollah missile attack, using chemical weapons, was one of his chief concerns.

If Mr. Obama and his allies proceeded with an attack on air defenses, missiles and the Syrian Air Force, they would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean and fighter jets that might be able to fire missiles without entering Syrian airspace. But it is unclear how effective those would be.

Mr. Obama has always made clear that any action should be taken with allies and neighbors. But NATO has been reluctant, and Russia, which keeps a naval base in Syria, has been opposed. Israeli officials have said that they do not want to go into Syria, fearing that any Israeli attack would fuel Mr. Assad’s argument that the civil war in his country is the result of foreign provocations. Some Israeli officials have argued that the Arab League should be in the vanguard of any attack, but it has shown little interest in direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

That has left the same trio that led the attack on Libya in 2011: the United States, Britain and France. There has been constant discussion among their militaries about “options of every kind,” one official involved in the talks said this week. “Clearly, an airstrike would be much more complex than in Libya,” the official said, noting that most of the targets there were in the desert.

The deliberations on how to respond militarily to any confirmed use of chemical weapons was taking place against the backdrop of some of the most intense conventional fighting in the two-year-old Syrian conflict, which has left more than 70,000 people dead.

(cont)

-t

AngryCanadian
05-04-2013, 07:18 AM
No we arent. There is no confirmation that Israel did strike in Syria.

ghengis86
05-04-2013, 07:28 AM
No we arent. There is no confirmation that Israel did strike in Syria.

http://rt.com/news/israel-strikes-syria-reports-798/

Israeli sources confirm that the Air Force has conducted an airstrike on Syrian territory. Anonymous officials said the strikes targeted a shipment of advanced missiles.

The unnamed officials told AP and Reuters the target weapons were not chemical, but were bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement and were sophisticated enough to prompt the Israeli strike on early Friday.

But Amos Gilad, a senior Israeli defense official, denied reports of the strike.

"I don’t know what or who confirmed, who are these sources? In my book only the IDF's spokesperson unit is official," he told Ynetnews.

In a similar airstrike in January, Israeli warplanes destroyed what was reported as a convoy of advanced air defense missiles that Syria wanted to hand over to Hezbollah. Damascus said the target was a military research facility and denied trying to transfer advanced weapons to its ally. The surface-to-air missiles would compromise Israel’s ability to enter Lebanon’s airspace unhindered.

On Friday media in Lebanon reported that Israeli jets conducted several sorties into Lebanese airspace, with some of them flying in circles over the capital, Beirut. Lebanon’s army website had listed an unusual 16 flights by Israeli warplanes penetrating Lebanese airspace from Thursday evening through Friday afternoon local time. Lebanon's President Michel Suleiman condemned the flyovers, branding them a “continuation of Israel's policy of aggression” and called on the international community to put pressure on Tel Aviv to stop this practice.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Aaron Sagui did not comment Friday night specifically on the report of an Israeli strike.

jmdrake
05-04-2013, 07:28 AM
No we arent. There is no confirmation that Israel did strike in Syria.


The intel looks pretty solid at this point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10037263/Syria-air-strike-hints-at-change-in-how-far-Israel-will-involve-itself-in-conflict.html

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 07:42 AM
It is on the list.. isn't it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k

Timeline may be off,, but the plans remain.


The burden concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

ClydeCoulter
05-04-2013, 07:51 AM
"...and fighter jets that might be able to fire missiles without entering Syrian airspace."

Oh, that makes a difference? Wouldn't the missiles be "entering Syrian airspace"?

What kind of world did I enter into?

Brett85
05-04-2013, 07:58 AM
So is this an example of a situation where we have to come aid Israel for their "self defense?"

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 08:00 AM
So is this an example of a situation where we have to come aid Israel for their "self defense?"

Pretty much,, yup.

what did you really expect?

Matt Collins
05-04-2013, 08:04 AM
Who is "we'? I ain't going to war with anyone. The US government might be, but that doesn't mean I am. And besides, the US Government doesn't even declare war any more. There was no Korean War, or Vietnam War, or Iraq War, or even "Civil War". They were all either undeclared, which makes them not a war, or in the case of the "Civil War" (which nomenclature is a fallacy on it's face) it was illegal and not a war at all because it wasn't declared.

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 08:09 AM
Who is "we'? I ain't going to war with anyone. The US government might be, but that doesn't mean I am. And besides, the US Government doesn't even declare war any more. There was no Korean War, or Vietnam War, or Iraq War, or even "Civil War". They were all either undeclared, which makes them not a war, or in the case of the "Civil War" (which nomenclature is a fallacy on it's face) it was illegal and not a war at all because it wasn't declared.

And that makes what difference in reality?

Are you still supporting the system? Paying tax?

Me,, I would rather be the wrench..even if I only knock one tooth off one gear.

jmdrake
05-04-2013, 08:14 AM
"...and fighter jets that might be able to fire missiles without entering Syrian airspace."

Oh, that makes a difference? Wouldn't the missiles be "entering Syrian airspace"?

What kind of world did I enter into?

The wonderful world of "kinectic actions" which all that matters is the safety of your own troops. The only thing the Israelis were worried about is "might our planes get shot down?"

XTreat
05-04-2013, 08:44 AM
\\

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 09:03 AM
So is this an example of a situation where we have to come aid Israel for their "self defense?"

You know, this is why I occasionally and temporarily slip into hatred of Israel (Note that that is NOT the same thing as having anything against the Jewish race, lest anyone confuse the two). Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan... All of them take away more of their own people's rights than Israel does. But we would never go to war to "Defend" one of those countries like that. Pakistan is technically allied with us, so maybe if they were actually attacked we might defend them, but we would never invade India if Pakistan bombed the same.

Yet with Israel, they attack someone and we call it "Self-defense." Thankfully, this wasn't what Rand meant when he said "Attack on Israel" but this is literally how the rest of the GOP thinks.

Israel started this one, let them burn for it.

Oh, and "We" are not going to war with Syria. The imperial regime might, but I am frankly on Syria's side on this one and I'm sure most other Ron Paul supporters will back the defending nation as well.

Who is "we'? I ain't going to war with anyone. The US government might be, but that doesn't mean I am. And besides, the US Government doesn't even declare war any more. There was no Korean War, or Vietnam War, or Iraq War, or even "Civil War". They were all either undeclared, which makes them not a war, or in the case of the "Civil War" (which nomenclature is a fallacy on it's face) it was illegal and not a war at all because it wasn't declared.
]
This.

The wonderful world of "kinectic actions" which all that matters is the safety of your own troops. The only thing the Israelis were worried about is "might our planes get shot down?"

But jmdrake, they're just defending our freedoms! Why do you hate America!:rolleyes:

Seriously though, I can just imagine my Bush-loving grandmother saying something like that. Absolute, unconditional worship of Jerusalem is a disease...

Brett85
05-04-2013, 09:13 AM
You know, this is why I occasionally and temporarily slip into hatred of Israel (Note that that is NOT the same thing as having anything against the Jewish race, lest anyone confuse the two).

Yeah, I'm generally one of the more pro Israel posters here, but I don't like it when U.S politicians say that helping Israel carry out a preemptive attack on another country is an example of "self defense." Our politicians don't seem to have any idea what that term actually means.

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 09:19 AM
"...and fighter jets that might be able to fire missiles without entering Syrian airspace."

Oh, that makes a difference? Wouldn't the missiles be "entering Syrian airspace"?

What kind of world did I enter into?Welcome to bizarro world, where up is down, war is police action, police action is war on drugs, Freedom isn't Free, taxes aren't stealing and hiding your property from thieves is cheating.

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 09:45 AM
Our politicians don't seem to have any idea what that term actually means.

Some of us have realized that for some time.

COpatriot
05-04-2013, 09:58 AM
This was probably another convoy of SAMs just like the last time they did this. How dare anyone infringe on Israel's right to violate Lebanese airspace with impunity.

Cleaner44
05-04-2013, 10:08 AM
US officials: Israelis launch airstrikes into Syria
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/03/18043900-us-officials-israelis-launch-airstrikes-into-syria?lite

‘Israeli officials confirm Syria airstrike that hit Hezbollah-bound weapons’
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-confirms-syria-airstrikes/

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 10:13 AM
Does anyone even ask the question,,,

Why would Israel seek to aid the overthrow of a moderate secular Government,, and aid the rise of a Radical Islamic Government in one of their neighbors?

It really makes no logical sense.

They have had diplomatic relations,, and relative peace with Syria for decades,, but are now aiding a Radical overthrow by a hostile Radical element.

Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?

thoughtomator
05-04-2013, 10:50 AM
Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?

It's very productive from a certain point of view - if war is the product you want to sell.

Zippyjuan
05-04-2013, 10:53 AM
Does anyone even ask the question,,,

Why would Israel seek to aid the overthrow of a moderate secular Government,, and aid the rise of a Radical Islamic Government in one of their neighbors?

It really makes no logical sense.

They have had diplomatic relations,, and relative peace with Syria for decades,, but are now aiding a Radical overthrow by a hostile Radical element.

Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?

From what we have been hearing so far, it seems that the Israeli attack was to try to stop a convoy of weapons including misslies from reaching Hezbollah- not an attack on the Syrian government or military- as was mentioned earlier, they did the same thing in January. While the US has been taking about considering more aid to the rebels fighting Assad, they are still insisting that there will not be any US miltary directly involved on the ground.

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 10:55 AM
"We're?" Somebody needs to read Anatomy of the State.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 11:01 AM
Who is "we'? I ain't going to war with anyone. The US government might be, but that doesn't mean I am. And besides, the US Government doesn't even declare war any more. There was no Korean War, or Vietnam War, or Iraq War, or even "Civil War". They were all either undeclared, which makes them not a war, or in the case of the "Civil War" (which nomenclature is a fallacy on it's face) it was illegal and not a war at all because it wasn't declared.
About time you stopped using the collective "we" incorrectly. :) :cool:

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 11:10 AM
From what we have been hearing so far,

And you will believe what you want to believe Zippy.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/zippy%20the%20pinhead.jpg

James Madison
05-04-2013, 11:10 AM
Does anyone even ask the question,,,

Why would Israel seek to aid the overthrow of a moderate secular Government,, and aid the rise of a Radical Islamic Government in one of their neighbors?

It really makes no logical sense.

They have had diplomatic relations,, and relative peace with Syria for decades,, but are now aiding a Radical overthrow by a hostile Radical element.

Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?

No, there's definitely a purpose. Just not a pleasant one.

Come to think of it, the US has been removing all the secular regimes. Iraq, Libya, Syria, even Egypt, were either partially or totally secular. The theocracies, the hotbed of real extremism are left untouched and are allowed to fill the void left by secular rulers.

pcosmar
05-04-2013, 11:17 AM
No, there's definitely a purpose. Just not a pleasant one.

Come to think of it, the US has been removing all the secular regimes. Iraq, Libya, Syria, even Egypt, were either partially or totally secular. The theocracies, the hotbed of real extremism are left untouched and are allowed to fill the void left by secular rulers.
Imagine that..
perhaps some masterminds really don't want peace,, despite the Rhetoric.


The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustionWe shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.

green73
05-04-2013, 11:21 AM
Sibel Edmonds agrees. She says Russia has made a deal to get out of the way in exchange for taking Iran off the table for at least a couple years.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmRWYLeOTc

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 11:21 AM
Does anyone even ask the question,,,

Why would Israel seek to aid the overthrow of a moderate secular Government,, and aid the rise of a Radical Islamic Government in one of their neighbors?

It really makes no logical sense.

They have had diplomatic relations,, and relative peace with Syria for decades,, but are now aiding a Radical overthrow by a hostile Radical element.

Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?
It seems to make starting a war with the Syrian regime more palatable to gullible Westerners. To you and I, it makes no sense. But you and I aren't sociopathic war profiteers.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 11:35 AM
Sibel Edmonds agrees. She says Russia has made a deal to get out of the way in exchange for taking Iran off the table for at least a couple years.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmRWYLeOTc
She's a really fascinating lady, thanks! I have her book in my Amazon cart-to get one day when I have some spare FRNs and extra time to read it.

Zippyjuan
05-04-2013, 11:35 AM
And you will believe what you want to believe Zippy.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/zippy%20the%20pinhead.jpg

Even the Syrian government isn't calling it an attack on them. Actually they aren't even saying if it happened or not.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/04/181022113/israel-reportedly-attacked-syrian-target-in-airstrike


Citing Israeli officials, the AP says the attack "was aimed at sophisticated 'game-changing' weapons, but not chemical arms. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles but was not more specific."


Israeli embassy spokesman Aaron Sagui would not respond directly to the reports of an airstrike, but he reiterated Israel's overall military position in an email statement to the AP:



"What we can say is that Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, specially to Hezbollah in Lebanon."

Israel's air force attacked an anti-aircraft installation in Syria in late January. As NPR's Greg Myre wrote at the time, direct military confrontations between Israel and Syria since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war have been rare and limited:



"The last Israeli airstrike in Syria was in 2007, when Israel bombed what it believed was a secret nuclear reactor. Syria has denied that the building was a nuclear facility."

[B]"In that 2007 attack and earlier ones, the Israelis carried out single strikes and did not wage a broader military campaign. Syria, in turn, did not respond directly to Israel but is widely seen as working through Hezbollah."

After that 2007 attack, Russia helped Syria upgrade its Soviet-era air defenses, as an AP report noted Thursday.

As NPR's Tom Bowman reports for our Newscast unit, "Both Israeli and U.S. officials are particularly worried that Syrian missiles and chemical weapons could leak out of the country in the midst of its civil war."

Reports of an Israeli airstrike follow news that Syria's government has used chemical weapons in the conflict, which President Obama has previously called a red line for the U.S. The president is weighing his options, as NPR's Don Gonyea reported Thursday.

On Friday, Obama said he doesn't "foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground, would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria," the AP reports. Earlier in the week, NPR's Kelly McEvers reported that the administration is considering arming the Syrian rebels.

Brian4Liberty
05-04-2013, 11:35 AM
Does anyone even ask the question,,,

Why would Israel seek to aid the overthrow of a moderate secular Government,, and aid the rise of a Radical Islamic Government in one of their neighbors?

It really makes no logical sense.

They have had diplomatic relations,, and relative peace with Syria for decades,, but are now aiding a Radical overthrow by a hostile Radical element.

Does this not seem counter productive to anyone?

Follow the money.

Additionally, there is the strategy of breaking up large states into smaller, weaker ones.

RickyJ
05-04-2013, 12:16 PM
WASHINGTON — Israeli aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as American officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

Because Israel attacks another nation we have to consider attacking them too? Didn't we attack Iraq in the first gulf war because they attacked Kuwait? So if we are considering attacking anyone here why isn't it Israel?

idiom
05-04-2013, 02:17 PM
Who is "we'? I ain't going to war with anyone. The US government might be, but that doesn't mean I am. And besides, the US Government doesn't even declare war any more. There was no Korean War, or Vietnam War, or Iraq War, or even "Civil War". They were all either undeclared, which makes them not a war, or in the case of the "Civil War" (which nomenclature is a fallacy on it's face) it was illegal and not a war at all because it wasn't declared.

Because if you stand by and watch as your government attacks other nations again and again, you bear zero responsibility.

torchbearer
05-04-2013, 02:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo

randpaul2016
05-04-2013, 02:28 PM
your first link in the OP changed...its no longer US weighing options

randpaul2016
05-04-2013, 02:29 PM
WASHINGTON — Israeli aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as American officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

...

“There are a lot of options on the table, and they’re generally carrying equal weight at the moment,” a senior administration official said Friday. He declined to discuss the others, though Mr. Hagel talked on Thursday about arming rebel groups

So far, President Obama has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out placing American forces on the ground, a stance he reiterated on Friday at a new conference in San José, Costa Rica, where he was meeting with Latin American leaders.

Mr. Obama told reporters he did not foresee a situation in which “American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria,” adding that he had consulted with leaders in the Mideast who agree.

When asked in recent days whether recent evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria crossed the “red line” he set in August, Mr. Obama described questions he would need to have answered — including when and how chemical weapons were used — before he would take action. Even then, he made clear, he may choose something well short of military action.

By Israeli estimates, Syria has 15 to 20 major chemical weapons sites, many near airfields that would make transport by plane relatively easy. Military planners say they would want to avoid hitting the chemicals for fear of creating toxic sites that could injure or kill civilians.

Ideally, one American commander said, the stockpiles would be surrounded, protected and then incinerated, much as the United States has done with its chemical arsenal. But that takes years, and as one official said, “We don’t have years, and we can’t keep troops there.”

That is why attacking the delivery systems seems like the next best option to many in the administration. Israel was believed to be behind an attack on some Syrian missiles in February as they were about to be transported, presumably to Hezbollah. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers that a Hezbollah missile attack, using chemical weapons, was one of his chief concerns.

If Mr. Obama and his allies proceeded with an attack on air defenses, missiles and the Syrian Air Force, they would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean and fighter jets that might be able to fire missiles without entering Syrian airspace. But it is unclear how effective those would be.

Mr. Obama has always made clear that any action should be taken with allies and neighbors. But NATO has been reluctant, and Russia, which keeps a naval base in Syria, has been opposed. Israeli officials have said that they do not want to go into Syria, fearing that any Israeli attack would fuel Mr. Assad’s argument that the civil war in his country is the result of foreign provocations. Some Israeli officials have argued that the Arab League should be in the vanguard of any attack, but it has shown little interest in direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

That has left the same trio that led the attack on Libya in 2011: the United States, Britain and France. There has been constant discussion among their militaries about “options of every kind,” one official involved in the talks said this week. “Clearly, an airstrike would be much more complex than in Libya,” the official said, noting that most of the targets there were in the desert.

The deliberations on how to respond militarily to any confirmed use of chemical weapons was taking place against the backdrop of some of the most intense conventional fighting in the two-year-old Syrian conflict, which has left more than 70,000 people dead.

(cont)

-t

where'd you get that from?

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 04:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVaPwdgezWI

HOLLYWOOD
05-04-2013, 07:41 PM
You know, this is why I occasionally and temporarily slip into hatred of Israel (Note that that is NOT the same thing as having anything against the Jewish race, lest anyone confuse the two).

Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan... All of them take away more of their own people's rights than Israel does.

we would never go to war to "Defend" one of those countries like that. But the difference is, Israel has caused the taking away of American; liberties, freedoms, & rights. Iran, North Korea, etc have not caused this in the U.S. to this date. No secret, in the 9/11 Commission documentation, both CIA and FBI representatives stated in those hearings, the attacks on the US, were directly because of Washington DC supporting Israel's military machine of death.

AnyHoo... hears another BBC report on Israel's attack on Damascus, the suppository Iranian missiles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22417482

4 May 2013 Last updated at 21:08 ET

'Israel rockets' hit Damascus military site
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67425000/jpg/_67425848_blast.jpg
Unverified footage posted online claimed to show the explosion at the Jamraya military research centre

Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22417482#story_continues_1) Syria conflict (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17258397)

Syrian state TV says Israeli rockets have hit a military research centre on the outskirts of the capital Damascus.
Huge explosions have been heard in the Mount Qassioun area of the city. The research centre there was the target of a Israeli strike in January.
Earlier, Israeli officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that on Friday Israeli aircraft had attacked a shipment of missiles in Syria.
The missiles were believed to be destined for Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Heavy explosions shook Damascus overnight. Amateur video footage posted online showed a huge ball of fire rising into the night sky above the city.
It claimed to show the explosion near the Jamraya military research facility.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65627000/gif/_65627070_syria_jamraya_304.gif
"The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups, which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army," Syrian state TV said, referring to recent offensives by President Bashar al-Assad's forces against rebels.
There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials on the latest explosions.
"We don't respond to this kind of report," an Israeli military spokeswoman told Reuters news agency.
Syrian forces and rebels have been fighting around Damascus for months but with neither side gaining the upper hand.
More than 70,000 people have been killed since the conflict erupted in March 2011.