Israel-US conspiracy in six-day war

by Terry Thu Jun 05, 2003 12:11

I saw the program too and what struck me most was that the US had without checking facts properly, basically on
a whim had dispatched a nuclear armed aircraft towards Cairo, with the intent of incinerating the place.

It really scared me that they would use such flimbsy evidence and shows that the nuclear threshold is very low indeed,
when US opponents are the target. When the US then realized it was the Israelis, they not just quickly dropped all
thoughts of attack, but as the program demonstrates, they went to great lengths to coverup the whole affair.

So what we have is a country that will gladly nuke weaker foes, but is very scared of stronger opponents. It must also
be remembered that back in 1967, the Israelis probably had not quite got nuclear weapons themselves them, but were
certainly on the brink of doing so and the very highest levels of the US administration would have had a fair idea.

The attack of the Liberty is also well documented in the book, 'Body of Secrets' by James Bamford which was published
two or three years ago. The book covers National Security Agency (NSA) from the early days to the present. It is
most detailed in the era from the 1950s to the early 70's and then is more general from the 1980's to the present.
For anyone who knows very little about the NSA, it is a very good place to start.

See related link for book review

by Irish American Thu Jun 05, 2003 17:34

Better say nonexistant. That's the evidence that "nuclear-armed" aircraft were launched by the USS Saratoga for a trike on Cairo.

If the BBC said that, more evidence that they're blind to anything but their own ideological template.

Ridiculous. Whatever Lyndon Johnson was, he was not the type that would nuke Cairo in reprisal for an attack on one ship.

Besides, if he were going to nuke any city in 1967, it would have been Hanoi.

by Ali H. Thu Jun 05, 2003 18:03

If you had watched the programme or read the post before shooting your mouth off you would have seen that both Johnson and McNamara countermanded the commander of the US fleet who attempted to launch a retaliatory strike against Egypt.

Finally in your infinite wisdom exactly what ideology are the BBC promoting ... we wait with baited breath?

by Irish American Thu Jun 05, 2003 19:05

First, I assume that as "Ali H" you take "Ali G" one letter further into nonsense. But I do love "Da Ali G show."

Second, the post alleged that nuclear weapon loaded jets were launched on Egypt.

Which I maintain is nonsense.

Now you say that the launch was countermanded by Johnson, after takeoff.

The truth is that nuclear weapons release is only made by the National Command Authority (NCA), which is the President and the Secretary of Defense.

So the planes wouldn't have been loaded with nukes and have taken off without Johnson's direct order, with all the encrypted verification needed to ensure security.

Nukes are highly secured, even onboard an aircraft carrier (if they were ever on an aircraft carrier, which I cannot confirm or deny). They just don't have bombs rolling around the flight deck.

It may be that planes were flying to a retaliatory strike, but they weren't loaded with nukes.

As far as the BBC goes, I guess their ideology is that bien-pensant leftism, tinged with anti-Americanism. You tell me.

by David C Thu Jun 05, 2003 21:24

I have personally heard from 2 different ex-US Navy sailors that American jets with Israeli markings operated from the decks of US aircraft carriers during the six day war. I heard this from 2 unrelated people who I believe to be reasonable and rational and whom I trust. These people say that they were there and that they saw this with their own eyes.

Personaly, I have trouble believing that this might be true.

by Ali H. Fri Jun 06, 2003 09:52

You Americans amaze me continually by your ability to make supposedly authoritative pronouncements on matters about which you know obviously very little.

If you had seen the documentary, which you obviously didn't, you would have seen the former NSA official who alleged that the A4s were launched following receipt of a "Flash" message.

If you had an intellectual leg to stand on you would restrict yourself to facts rather than sweeping generalisations accusing people of posting lies and being anti-whatever.

by Terry Fri Jun 06, 2003 12:01

In general I find that most comments by Americans on the actions of their own government tend to fall
fall into the category of 'This would never happen in America' or 'Our President would never do that',
in other words, quite naive. The fact that there are sinister people with sinister motives seems to
escape you. You seem to genuinely believe that what you have is democracy, a free press, and an almost
on questionable faith in allegiance to your flag and country.

I take your point that 'So the planes wouldn't have been loaded with nukes and have taken off without
Johnson's direct order, with all the encrypted verification needed to ensure security'

..but earlier you say: 'Ridiculous. Whatever Lyndon Johnson was, he was not the type that would nuke Cairo
in reprisal for an attack on one ship'.

How can you say that? Did you actually know Johnson? Even if you did, how well did you know him? Is it
because he's American, that he would never launch a nuclear attack? Is human nature of Americans
fundamentaly different than everyone else? How do you know Johnson called all the shots? Surely it is
the pressures of all those people around him and the people in the shadows that dictate the context of
what can and can't happen. Yeah, he has the final decision of sorts. Remember Kennedy brought you (+us) all
to the brink of global nuclear war. Was it really Kennedy that brought you there or was it all the people
around him (i.e. military-industrial complex, advisers etc). Perhaps it was Kennedy who saved you? Heck maybe
that's why they killed him. He was disobeying orders of the real sources of power and influence. Do you
think Bush is now leading the show? He might not be the full idiot they pretend he is, but one thing is
clear is that he's not leading, but following his cabal. Likewise Reagan.

And before you leap off with any more decrees on the sanctify of your leaders and country, remember that
Operation Northwoods had been hatched just five years earlier. This was the plan to launch a terrorist
campaign by the CIA on America citizens and then to blame it on Castro and the Cubans and use it as a pretext
to invade Cuba. It was obviously brought up to date over the years, with the Cubans being replaced by Arabs
and the pretext was changed to launch the War on Terror, which we all know is a War of Terror by the US
against anyone who they don't like or anyone who dissents.

This has a very real chance of leading to a nuclear war with either Russia or China, because ultimately in
their quest for global domination, the US will have to come eyeball to eyeball with them. And I don't think
they are going to back down. And why do I bring this up, because you people in the USA, ought to really
look deeply at the depth of depravity of your leaders, government and intelligence services, because that
is where they are leading you.

For details of Operation Northwoods see related link:

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 15:45

OK, Ali H, can you tell me what a "Flash" message is?? What "Flash" means??

I know, you presume and pretend to know.

Lay it out, baby.

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:08

The problem is that someone at the BBC makes an anti-American agit-prop documentary which throws around terms like "Flash message" without correctly defining them and then uses a certain onomatopedic licence to make an innuendo that "Flash message" = nuclear weapons. Which it doesn't.

Then, nitwits like Ali H who have the "ability to make supposedly authoritative pronouncements on matters about which you know obviously very little" (as he accused Americans of doing) use the innuendo based on incorrect information to say: "That proves it!!"

One again, Ali H: what is a "flash" message?

by Ali H. Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:28

Answer the question Irish American ... did you actually see the programme?

If you didn't how can you possibly question the veracity or otherwise of anything that was said in it?

As for what a "Flash" message is, try reading:

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/book.html

There is no need for the BBC or anybody else to make anti-American agit-prop documentaries, and I'm sure the British tax-payer would not pay for such an exercise, and why bother in any case when you Americans (stage-Irish or otherwise) do such a transparently obvious job of screwing up every country you "liberate"!

Finally, you think you can intimidate me and others, we'll you don't, personal insults are the ultimate refuge of those who have no arguments or logic with which to convince others!

by Dagda Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:43

http://ussliberty.org/wrmea602.txt

On June 10, London's BBC plans a worldwide
release of its new documentary called "Dead in the
Water." In it the BBC reports that the LIBERTY
attack almost led to a U.S. nuclear strike on
Egypt, which was briefly but mis- takenly thought
responsible for the attack. The film, which
includes interviews with former U.S. Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara, former CIA chief
Richard Helms and others, reveals secret
collaboration between Wash- ington and Tel Aviv
during the Six-Day War.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

The BBC has taken a look at the Liberty incident and developed new facts pertaining to the transfer of American Air Force photo recon planes to Israel, and a cancelled nuclear strike against Cairo in retaliation. They've produced a documentary, at that time known as, "Dead in the Water," which aired in England in June 2002, and was also shown in Germany, France and other European countries.

by Ali H. Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:54

The information was immediately passed to Frank Raven, chief of NSA’s G Group, responsible for eavesdropping on the non-Communist part of the world. He and Welsh took the information to the director, Air Force Lieutenant General Samuel C. Phillips, who agreed that

-------------------------------------------------
a warning message should be sent to the U.S. embassy in Khartoum at the highest precedence — Flash — reserved for only the most important information.
-------------------------------------------------

However, to hide the fact that the warning was coming from NSA, the message was first sent to the State Department in Washington, which would forward it to Khartoum. "We wrote that an imminent Black September operation was going to occur in Khartoum. We didn’t know where," said Welsh. Also mentioned was a codename for use in the operation, "Nahr al-Bard" — Cold River — and the fact that a high level diplomatic reception was scheduled to take place at the Saudi Arabian embassy.

The decision to attack another country would be taken at the highest level and would be of the highest priority.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/notes.html

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 16:55

I didn't see anything about the definition of a "flash" message in the text of the link Ali H provided.

I read Bamford's earlier book, The Puzzle Palace, it seemed to be accurate, but if he's saying now that flash message = nuclear weapons release authority he has seriously gone off the rails.

I'm speaking here as a retired US naval officer with 7 years active, 18 years reserve service.

So readers can decide who knows what they're talking about, me or Ali H.

All "flash" means in a message is that the message is of the highest "precedence" or priority (although "priority" is itself a precedence) in the US military message system.

That means that the message jumps to the head of the queue in message queueing systems.

The US military message precedence scheme is as follows:

Flash - messages regarding matters of utmost national security matters which must be transmitted instantaneously

Immediate - Very high precedence messages regarding military operations

Priority - messages which require a quicker transmission than the routine, also usually in regard to military operations or urgent personnel or supply matters.

Routine - usually messages regarding personnel and supply matters of a routine nature.

These precedences are less important now, because digital communications, more satellites and incresed bandwidth have made almost any communications instantaneous, but in 1967 when most messages were transmitted by high frequency radio in analog format, by and through naval communications relay stations around the world, they were very important.

Certainly all operational messages regarding an attack on a US naval vessel in progress would have been transmitted with flash precedence.

So what Ali H said, and I infer what the BBC was trying to infer, was nonsense.

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 17:03

I didn't see anything about the definition of a "flash" message in the text of the link Ali H provided.

I read Bamford's earlier book, The Puzzle Palace, it seemed to be accurate, but if he's saying now that flash message = nuclear weapons release authority he has seriously gone off the rails.

I'm speaking here as a retired US naval officer with 7 years active, 18 years reserve service.

So readers can decide who knows what they're talking about, me or Ali H.

All "flash" means in a message is that the message is of the highest "precedence" or priority (although "priority" is itself a precedence) in the US military message system.

That means that the message jumps to the head of the queue in message queueing systems.

The US military message precedence scheme is as follows:

Flash - messages regarding matters of utmost national security matters which must be transmitted instantaneously

Immediate - Very high precedence messages regarding military operations

Priority - messages which require a quicker transmission than the routine, also usually in regard to military operations or urgent personnel or supply matters.

Routine - usually messages regarding personnel and supply matters of a routine nature.

These precedences are less important now, because digital communications, more satellites and incresed bandwidth have made almost any communications instantaneous, but in 1967 when most messages were transmitted by high frequency radio in analog format, by and through naval communications relay stations around the world, they were very important.

Certainly all operational messages regarding an attack on a US naval vessel in progress would have been transmitted with flash precedence.

So what Ali H said, and I infer what the BBC was trying to infer, was nonsense.

by Ali H. Fri Jun 06, 2003 17:07

I posted an article on a BBC programme the content of which you do not contest on other than semantic grounds.

Is this really the best you can do?

By the way if you had read my previous post which you obviously didn't (this is becoming a pattern), it did contain a highlighted piece of text explaining what a flash message is (ie highest priority), all you provided in addition to this was a detailed explanation of the queueing system which is of no relevance as it is bypassed by a message of the highest priority.

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 17:14

. . . do you mean Germany (the western part)?

Japan?

South Korea?

Italy?

maybe France?

how about Ireland, where "Stage Oirish" such as myself provided the financial means to pay for the IRA 1916-1922?

you could add the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, even Russia itself, for without US resistance the Berlin Wall would never have come down.

. . . do you mean Afghanistan, where, despite problems in dealing with tribalism and primitive attitudes, progress is being made, freedom is growing?

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 17:20

I admit I didn't read the post prior to the one I wrote about precedence, but it really corroborates my own.

A flash message is just a highest precedence message.

An attack on a US naval vessel, and the defense of the vessel would without a doubt call for a flash message.

So you and the BBC really were trying to make something out of no significance.

by Ali H. Fri Jun 06, 2003 17:44

My post was not intended as opinion, rather as a report of what I saw in the BBC programme for the benefit of those who did not see it.

I believe that the BBC made the programme in good faith, and there were no faceless unattributable comments from securocrats.

Every source in the program had a face, and the nuclear allegations were made by a former NSA operative.

From what I saw there are many questions to answer and the Israelis and US representatives interviewed declined to answer any of them ... this would make most people suspicious at least.

In my understanding of a democracy it is both legitimate and healthy to question what is going on in the world and it is perfectly possible to pose this sort of question without necessarily being anti-anything, although I freely admit I am no fan of US governments and foreign policy past and present.

Finally I suggest that you take a look at the documentary when it eventually hits PBS so you can judge for yourself, not second-hand from my post.

by Irish American Fri Jun 06, 2003 19:11

I look forward to seeing the documentary. I just finished reading a piece in the US Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine which was quite critical of the Israelis.

http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/PROcurrentoc.htm

I take no position on that controversy, but if what you say about the documentary is true, its credibility is suspect.

If you use a fact, like "they sent a FLASH message," which means nothing significant under the circumstances, and you try to give it meaning beyond its significance, you may deceive the ignorant, but you will destroy your credibility with the knowledgeable.

I would admit that this is sometimes practiced by the US and other governments, and quite often by polemicists of all types.