If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Operation Cyanide and the USS Liberty (was: Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack)
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: (Mike Weeks) wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: In both the Lavon Affair and the Liberty Attack, one of Israel's goals was the removal of Nasser from power in Egypt. LOL; say what. Attacking a US ship was going to remove Nasser, is that right?? Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Egypt. Nasser would be gone. LOL: you idiot; greater Cairo would be gone given your warped understanding of something which has no documentation ... I said nothing about the target of the nuclear attack. Why do you assume that it would have been Cairo? Killing Nasser would have made him a martyr. Israel definitely did not want to do that. The bomb could have been dropped in the desert as a warning, and it would have had the desired effect. In fact, one of the planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb. First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind. You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative. LBJ would have been very careful to avoid leaving any evidence, and he would probably destroy any evidence which arose. LBJ was not stupid. Second, it takes/took a presidential order to even launch such armed aircraft if not an exercise or other non-war setting. I agree that Johnson must have known and approved of Operation Cyanide. To minimize suspicion, the pilot was probably told it was an exercise. If everything had gone according to plan, he would have gotten attack orders while he was airborne, instead of getting recall orders. Oh, here's some real documentation: start Z 081316Z JUN 67 FM CTF SIX ZERO TO USS AMERICA USS SARATOGA ... S E C R E T DEFENSE USS LIBERTY ... 4. DEFENSE OF USS LIBERTY MEANS EXACTLY THAT. DESTROY OR DRIVE OFF ANY ATTACKERS WHO ARE CLEARLY MAKING ATTACKS ON LIBERTY. REMAIN OVER INTERNATIONAL WATERS. DEFEND YOURSELF IF ATTACKED. end What's your point, other than to highlight that the Navy jets did not reach the Liberty despite their orders? And when are you going to tell us about the arrogant jet jocks that you had to deal with? False flag operations require enormous amount of effort to produce 'evidence' which would: 1) 'prove' that the attack was done by somebody else. In the case of Lavon Affair, false evidence was left to implicate the Muslim Brotherhood, such as leaving copies of the Koran with Muslim Brotherhood literature inside which would then be found serendipitously at the attack sites (sound familiar?) In Operation Cyanide, evidence would have been fabricated to 'prove' that Egypt sunk the Liberty, Hence, the submarine which just 'happened' to be there, may have had the mission to take photographs which would later be modified to show that it was Egyptian planes rather than Israeli planes which attacked the Liberty. Even in the days before digital photography, it was possible to alter photographs to show whatever you wanted. 2) provide alibis to the guilty parties, and destroy evidence which would implicate Israel and the United States. The moral standing of the United States has certainly fallen world wide because of the torture photographs from Iraq. Imagine the world response if it were learned that the U.S. was involved in a nuclear attack based on a fabricated pretext. To keep this knowledge secret, it may be necessary to conduct a long term operation to silence critics, perhaps using name calling, ridicule, changing the subject, non sequiturs, in fact, all the things that you do, Weeks. Oh, BTW, you skipped over: What happened to the claim it was to prevent the US from learning of the open-secret that the Golan Heights were most likely to be attacked next? Huh? I'm sure Washington had prior knowledge of Israel's intention to attack Syria, and that Washington gave Israel a green light to proceed. The whole point of the SDW was not just to defeat the Arabs, but to improve the relationship between Israel and the United States. Looking at U.S. foreign military aid to Israel since that time, relations obviously did improve. Israel now gets billions of dollars in military aid from the United States every year, and the trend has been upwards. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Issac Goldberg" wrote in message om... Some weird conspiracy theory I doubt even he believes. tim gueguen 101867 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after
Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Egypt. Nasser would be gone. If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes: 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had. 2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM. 3) Attack with a single plane. 4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point. 5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag. 6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos. A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would be a much better method for framing Egypt. In fact, one of the planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb. First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind. (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com... You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative. Which is the base for your never ending bull****. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words? Notice how the weasel ... Notice how Weeks cannot avoid a personal attack. I guess he realizes how weak his arguments are. If he had strong arguments, he would not need to make personal attacks, or use name calling and insults, or repeatedly use dishonest tactics, like implying that Congress investigated the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional. ... turns everything on its head, in his black-is-white world. Here in the USA one has to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going to go out and make charges and have any crediblity ... All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty. What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional? Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Why doesn't Cristol list that investigation on his web site instead of the two Congressional investigations which obviously did NOT look into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional? You could have just as easily said that all the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attack was an accident. It looks like you are the one who sees the world as black-is-white. If you are going to say Congress did investigate whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional you need to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going to have any credibility ... Lack of evidence is exactly that -- lack of evidence. So where is your evidence that Congress held hearings on the question of whether the attack was intentional? We are still waiting for your answer. Where is the Committee's report? No hearings + no report = no investigation. Lack of evidence is exactly that - lack of evidence. But what the heck, let's even claim this attack was a joint US-Israeli operation as this poster does and really muddy the waters ... From a story which appeared in the Washington Post: 'Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan, who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and where I have to stop. And here I stop." 'When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303 Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide, he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?' http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I donn't know about how some of the others on this group feel, but I am
getting tired of it and from now on those parties involved are going to bew blocked. What happened is done and cannot bring back those that were lost. Both sides lied and that is all I am going to say. Leanne |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan, who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and where I have to stop. And here I stop." This doesn't even remotely prove what you've been claiming … In the quote above, Eitan did NOT say: "I never heard of Operation Cyanide," or "I was not involved in Operation Cyanide and I don't know any of its details." What he did say implies that he both heard of Operation Cyanide and knew what the details were. And that he would continue to keep the details secret. Hmmmm. I never even remotely claimed that I could PROVE anything. I was not a member of the Liberty crew, nor was I involved in any official investigation of the Liberty, nor did I ever work for a government intelligence agency, nor was I ever a member of the Armed Services. I have made speculations based on what is available publicly, and that does not include any of the classified material. And the information which is available publicly does not support your conclusion that everything is OK. All I ask for is an impartial investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty which would hear all sides and consider all evidence. You, however, oppose a new investigation with every ounce of energy in your body. Why? If you are correct in your assertions, then you have nothing to worry about. But you do worry, don't you? Why do you spend so much of your time opposing a new investigation? And when are you going to tell us about the arrogant jet jockeys you had to deal with? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message om... wrote: If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes: 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had. Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire production run of Mirages sold to Israel? A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot. Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier? The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would be no need to engage in name calling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|