|
solly
|
 |
« Reply #230 on: March 15, 2008, 02:24:27 PM » |
|
The reason I ask is I received this from an old friend who is now in his eighties, a retired, once high ranking U.S. Navy career officer.
"We have long wondered, and conjectured, the "why" of the Liberty incident, as it has become known and referred to; "incident" being an easier event to push onto the back burner and forget while it simmers away harmlessly, unlikely to boil over and burn the stew.
It was obvious that the Israelis knew at the time what they were doing, who they were attacking and, long ago, I found sufficient evidence myself, to prove it to my satisfaction at least, in my subsequent discussions over beer years later with the Commander of the Torpedo Boat Squadron who led the attack and whose boat fired the torpedo which hit Liberty, Admiral Yomi Barkai, IDF (Navy) Retired, when his answer to the question was, "Of course we did. What the f*ck, you don't think we were amateurs do you?" Yomi went on to become the Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces Navy, largely because of his excellent service in Motor Torpedo Boats, his program which developed the IDF fast MTB missile weapons systems, and his combat record in attacking USS Liberty.
Phil Tourney, who was on USS Liberty and is obviously an interested, but definitely not objective, observer or commentator in Liberty matters, postulates a very reasonable and credible answer to "why" Liberty was attacked.
""Black Flag," in furtherance of international political intrigues, in which one ship in the US Navy and its crew, were selected and set-up for sacrifice to US/Israeli International intervention objectives and political ambitions."
I don't know where Tourney got his information and he does not cite his sources. If you want to know, you can ask him or dig into it yourselves.
But, his "black Flag" thesis is the only credible one I have heard of in fifty-one years!
What I am asking here is not whether the tactically unwise and unusually heavy concentration of US Navy battle groups as sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf, which no right thinking Admiral would tolerate in times of war or battle, is a set-up designed and intended to provide a few sacrificial goats to an Iranian attack which will justify nuking hell out of Iran, because it is quite obvious the reason why they are there, massed as a convenient target. Nice little sitting ducks, like those little steel ducks on the endless chain which marched across the back of the range in those .22 cal target shooting galleries which used to accompany traveling Carnivals which came to town in the spring and fall back in the Homeland.
What I am suggesting is, what if the Iranians, who are not fools, do not bite?
What then?
We have wasted a lot of fuel, ship, aircraft and man time in a futile decoy operation which attracted no shooters. No attack... equals no justification to blow Iran all the way back to beyond the stone age.
So, what do we do?
Hey, why not run the old USS Liberty Op through again?
Attacking an Aircraft Carrier Assault Group, backed up with one or two more of the same might sound intimidating, and it is certainly a dangerous undertaking. But, the more ships involved, the more targets. And, in a black flag operation such as this, you don't actually have to score or sink anyone. All you have to do is make the attack, and disguise the identity of the attackers, permitting the blame to fall on the obvious and, before anyone can ask too many questions, nuke the hell out of them which will destroy any evidence to the fact that it might not have been them in the first place.
It will not require many assets on the part of the IDF Air Forces. A couple of aircraft, launching air to ship missile ordnance from 'way out, will be well on the way home before they detonate and, as I said, even if they do not score, the damage is done.
And, if the IDF will consent to the sacrifice of a couple of planes (which we will replace) and a couple of pilots (what the hell, it's their war, let them contribute) we will not even have to defend a recall of defense aircraft sent out to "get the f*ckers who did this," and at the same time it will destroy any evidence of who did it, and the pilots sent out to get them will be certain to testify to the Iranian markings they saw on the attacking aircraft.
The IDF pilots do not have to be briefed on the entire operation, and it will probably suffice to assure them that any planes launched to go after them will be recalled as happened the last time.
And, unlike, Yomi Barkai, they will not be around to discuss the operation twenty-four years later with another sailor sitting in a Trinidad Yacht Club bar.
The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that this is not a question of "if" any longer. It is merely a question of "when."
When?
When the time is ripe.... You will first hear about it from the puckered, offended and offensive lips of the Chimp-in-Chief himself... "This morning, a dastardly attack.... I have already ordered.... and even as I speak, the Capitol City of Tehran has just ceased to exist...." etc.
Bill Fallon was pushed to resign. Were they afraid that an Admiral of the Navy who had been a career-long embarrassing-question asker might not sign on to such a ploy? That he might have objected to the sacrifice of his own men which some of his earlier predecessors, a former SecDef and CinC could stomach?"
It's drawing a long bow but does it stretch credibility further than the sham cassus belli of the Iraq war?
The source, incidentally, is someone for whom I have the greatest respect, not usually given to far-out conspiracy theories.
|
