Saturday, June 13, 2009

ARCHBISHOP SARDI NAMED PRO-PATRON OF ORDER OF MALTA/CIA front for decades....


Today the order of MALTA/CIA carries out humanitarian assistance... and doubles as a CIA front... and medical and social activities in 120 countries....

http://www.dejanlucic.net/Blackwater.html

http://www.zenit.org/article-26116?l=english


VATICAN CITY, Benedict XVI named one of his close colleagues at the Secretariat of State, Archbishop Paolo Sardi, as pro-patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

The archbishop succeeds Cardinal Pio Laghi (1922-2009), and as pro-patron will promote the spiritual interests of the order and its members and its relations with the Holy See.

The title "pro" indicates he is not a cardinal. In the case that the Pope decides to elevate Archbishop Sardi to the College of Cardinals, he will the become patron of the order.

Archbishop Sardi, 74, worked in the Secretariat of State during the pontificate of Paul VI, editing the Pope’s documents and speeches.

He was ordained an archbishop in 1996. In 2004, he was named vice chamberlain of Apostolic Chamber. As part of his duties, he placed the seals on the papal apartments after the death of John Paul II.

The origins of the Order of Malta, an international hospitaller and relief organization, date back to 1050, when it was founded as a fraternity at the service of St. John´s Hospital in Jerusalem.

Today the order carries out humanitarian assistance... and doubles as a CIA front and medical and social activities in 120 countries.

CIA's INFORMATION OPERATIONS CENTER and OSINT....



Avec l’avènement de la société de l’information et des nouvelles technologies est aussi apparu un nouveau champ de bataille virtuel mais néanmoins crucial pour les grandes puissances.

Récemment encore la démonstration en fut donnée quand des pirates ont tenté de « hacker » des serveurs gouvernementaux canadiens allemands britanniques et américains. Les enquêtes ultérieures auraient démontrés qu’ils avaient opéré depuis des bases sur l’ile d’Hainan dépendantes de la troisième section de l’Etat-major de l’armée chinoise (APL) chargée de l’interception des communications.

La CIA pour ce qui la concerne a rapidement a pris la mesure de ce phénomène et notamment de son importance dans le domaine du renseignement.


En 1996 John DEUTSCH charge un groupe de travail ad-hoc de travailler à la création d’un Clandestine Information Technology Office (CITO) qui deviendra dès 2000 l’actuel Information Operations Center (IOC).

Avant de définir les missions officielles et clandestines de cette structure il apparaît intéressant d’étudier les personnalités composant ce groupe ad-hoc à l’origine de la structure.

James R. GOSLER leader de ce groupe -qui sera d’ailleurs nommé premier directeur du CITO- est un officier de réserve de la marine américaine diplômé de mathématiques et de physique. Après plusieurs années au laboratoire de recherche nucléaire de Sandia ou il s’occupe notamment de modélisation et de simulation numérique puis de sécurité informatique, il rejoint de 1989 à 91 la National Security Agency (NSA) ou il poursuit ses recherches dans le domaine des réseaux informatiques et de leurs sécurité (INFOSEC).

En octobre 1996 après six mois d’analyse et d’études Il réorganise le CITO avec un tel succès que, selon sa biographie officielle, l’influence du bureau sur la sécurité nationale US en est décuplée. Les récompenses pleuvent entre cette date et son départ de la CIA en 2001. Entre autres le Director of Central Intelligence Director's Award, la Intelligence Medal of Merit, la National Intelligence Medal of Achievement et le Clandestine Service Medallion.


Fred TURCO a lui un parcours totalement différent. Ce vétéran de la Direction des opérations (DO), affecté à la division moyen orient et ancien chef de station dans la région s’est spécialisé dans le contre terrorisme. Il sera d’ailleurs présent lors de la création du CTC par Duane CLARRIDGE en 1985. Au sein du CITO puis IOC il a semble t il su utiliser de manière innovante les nouvelles technologies dans la lutte anti terroriste.


En 1996, alors qu’il travaillait à la NSA Charles K. ORTHMAN, fût invité à mettre ses connaissances cryptographiques et informatiques au service de la création du Clandestine Information Technology Office (CITO).

Glenn A. GAFFNEY, en 1996, est lui chargé du programme de ciblage de la structure en synergie avec la DO. Il sera ensuite successivement chef de l’analyse et des opérations puis adjoint au responsable administratif, enfin de 2002 à 2005 adjoint au chef de l’IOC avant d’en devenir le chef de novembre 2005 à décembre 2006.


C’est donc en avril 1996 que John DEUTSCH crée Clandestine Information Technology Office. Il place cette structure sous la direction conjointe de Ruth DAVID directrice de la science et de la Technologie (DS&T) et de David COHEN le directeur des Operations.

En 2000 le CITO laisse donc la place à l’Information Operations Center toujours sous la double responsabilité de la DS&T et la DO puis du National Clandestine Service (NCS).

Officiellement l’IOC et en particulier son groupe d’analyse (IOC/AG) est chargé d’évaluer les menaces et étrangères (états ou organisations terroristes) contre les systèmes informatiques des organisations les plus importantes dans la défense des USA.

Officiellement toujours ils sont les maitres d’oeuvre de plusieurs kriegspielen informatiques –noms de code LIVEWIRE ou SILENT HORIZON- ou ils simulent toutes sortes d’attaques contre des serveurs US pour en tester la sécurité.

En fait plusieurs éléments troublants livrés ici tracent un dessin beaucoup moins consensuel.

Si le CITO puis l’IOC sont chargés d’analyser la sécurité et de protéger les serveurs informatiques US pourquoi a-t-on dès sa création choisi de le placer en partie sous la responsabilité de la Direction des Opérations chargée des actions offensives de la CIA.

Par ailleurs la carrière des officiers de la DO affectés à cette structure doit interpeller. Fred TURCO on l’a vu est un spécialiste du moyen orient et de ses trop nombreux groupes terroristes. Il est présent lors de la création du CTC en 1985 et le dirige même de 1987 à 1991. A la fin des années 90 il participe à la création de l’External Operations and Cover Division. Ce n’est donc pas un spécialiste des communications mais bien un technicien de la collecte clandestine du renseignement qu’on aurait chargé de s’assurer de la sureté des serveurs US ?


La biographie de Robert M. DANNENBERG qui a dirigé l’Information Operations Center de décembre 2006 à août 2007 est encore plus parlante. Après avoir dirigé la station de la CIA à Moscou jusqu'à 2003 puis chef des opérations du CTC jusqu'à 2004 il est nommé chef de la division Eurasie de la DO-NCS jusqu'à son arrivée à l’IOC.


Ce sont donc bien des chasseurs que l’on a placé à la tête d’une structure chargé -non seulement- de la protection des serveurs US contre les attaques du net, mais aussi d’opérations offensives de renseignement au travers des autoroutes de l’information. Ma théorie est que l’IOC est aujourd’hui au cœur de la collecte technique clandestine de renseignement de la CIA. Au même titre que les écoutes l’espionnage et l’action clandestine sur le net est devenu un atout crucial dans la panoplie du renseignement américain.



Pour conclure cet article il me vient le souvenir d’un article lu il y a 2 ans dans Marianne... On y racontait l’étrange histoire d’attaques informatiques subies par les serveurs de gestion des pipe-lines iraniens.... Ces attaques se serait répandues jusqu’au systèmes informatiques du programme nucléaire militaire de Téhéran le bloquant pendant quelques mois…..


Pour conclure cet article il me vient le souvenir d’un article lu il y a 2 ans dans Marianne. On y racontait l’étrange histoire d’attaques informatiques subies par les serveurs de gestion des pipe-lines iraniens. Ces attaques se serait répandues jusqu’au systèmes informatiques du programme nucléaire militaire de Téhéran le bloquant pendant quelques mois…..

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Military vs. Political Victory....an eye opener for the Lebanese....





Military vs. Political Victory....an eye opener for the Lebanese..... " future CIA ops. are nearing completion...."

L´intelligence en général et l´intelligence politique en particulier, nécessite des qualités de cœur, des vertus qui s´acquièrent en premier lieu par le respect de l´Autre ?...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The first, the supreme, the most
far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and the commander
have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they
are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into,
something that is alien to its nature....”

It is better to have lived one day as a lion than to have lived a hundred years as a lamb ~Italian proverb

.....http://filkkaisrael.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_8826.html.....

Network-centric Warfare: Dominating entire societies Worldwide through ubiquitous surveillance.....

The global security arena may be characterized as a game of chess.
In it, protagonists move pieces silently and subtly all over the game
board. Under the players’ studied direction, each piece represents
a different type of devastating power, and may simultaneously
conduct its lethal attacks from differing directions. Similarly, each
piece shows no mercy against its foe, and is prepared to sacrifice itself
to allow another piece the opportunity to destroy a more important
adversary―or checkmate the king. Likewise, every player in the
global security arena from proverbial pawns to bishops to the queen
must attack the adversary and simultaneously cope defensively with
several potentially grave types of threats.

In the real game of global politics, and at a lower level on the
likelihood ladder of warfare as a whole, conventional military attack
retains certain credibility. Nevertheless, this challenge is frequently
complicated by threats and menaces at a higher level of likelihood
emanating from rogue states, nonstate and transnational terrorists,
insurgents, illegal drug traffickers, organized criminals, warlords,
militant fundamentalists, ethnic cleansers, and 1,000 other “snakes”
with a cause―and the will to conduct asymmetrical warfare to
achieve their own political objectives.102 Logic would, thus, dictate
that military organization, training, and equipment must adopt two
parallel tracks: the first aimed at direct conventional interstate war,
and the second aimed at unconventional nonstate and intrastate
political war. But, as in the game of chess, General Sir Frank Kitson,
United Kingdom, (Retired), argues that these tracks should not be
considered as independent forms of contemporary conflict. They are
parts within the concept of total war.103

39

In connection with the idea of total war, or warfare as a whole, the
military role goes beyond traditional warfighting to unconventional
conflict and to consolidating success by providing security and
support to partners, other government and international agencies,
and nongovernmental organizations in the aftermath. Under
these conditions, security forces provide the capabilities needed
to consolidate battlefield success and turn it into strategic political
victory. Thus, as shown in the Italian case, strategic victory requires
not only the defeat of an enemy military or insurgent force, but also
the protection of the state’s socio-political foundations to ensure a
durable and prosperous peace.....
.....http://geoplotical.blogspot.com/2009/03/white-house-murder-inc-and-cia-solution.html.

In the contemporary global security environment, international
organizations and willing national powers are increasingly called
on to respond to conflicts generated by all kinds of instabilities and
destabilizers. Furthermore, the international community increasingly
is expected to provide the leverage to ensure that legitimate governance
is given to responsible, incorrupt, and competent leadership that
can and will address the political, economic, and social root causes
that underlie a given traditional or unconventional conflict. This
legitimate governance concept has serious implications in terms of
failing and failed states. As demonstrated in the Italian, Peruvian,
and Argentine cases, the conscious positive or negative choices
that a government makes about how to conduct national security
and stability efforts will define the future of the state―through the
processes of national reform, regeneration, and protection of citizens’
well-being and by extension, global security. Thus, the capability to
attain strategic political victory―rather than just military victory―is
much more important now and for the future than it has been in the
past.104

Summary.

In sum, instability, violence, and the use of terrorist tactics and
strategies in political wars are pervasive in the world today. It is
important, then, for the United States and the West―as primary
recipients of most of the benefits of global stability and economic
integration―to do their utmost to protect and enhance the global order.
And that must be done before even more territory, infrastructure,
and stability are quietly and slowly destroyed, and more thousands
of innocents die.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRATEGIC LEADERS

The study of the fundamental nature of conflict has always been
the cornerstone for understanding conventional war.105 It is no less
relevant to nontraditional conflict. In the past, some wars tended to
be unrealistically viewed as generally amenable to military attrition
solutions―the Vietnam War and the two relatively recent Iraq Wars
being good examples. In the 21st century, the complex realities of
contemporary wars must be understood as holistic processes that rely
on various civilian and military agencies and contingents working
together in an integrated fashion, to achieve common, workable, and
reasonable political-strategic ends.

Given today’s realities, failure to prepare adequately for present
and future political-insurgency war contingencies is unconscionable.
Experience clearly demonstrates that the tradition of simply training
and equipping troops has proven to be an inadequate tacticaloperational
reaction to the types of problems that pertain to modern
political war. At a minimum, three strategic-level imperatives are
needed to begin to deal effectively with contemporary global conflict
situations: (1) civil-military and military-to-military dialogue
regarding viable security and stability; (2) fundamental education
and understanding requirements; and the (3) strategic application of

U.S. military power.
Dialogue on Security and Stability.

At the highest levels, a beginning point from which to work
toward viable security and stability would be to:
• Help advance a nation’s or region’s understanding of the
conventional and unconventional security concerns and
threats facing it,
• Develop permanent civil-military mechanisms for addressing
these concerns and threats,
• Obtain consensus on common principles and concepts of
security and stability to address real threats stemming from
general concerns, and

41

• Foster expanded political-military dialogue and cooperation
in an atmosphere of mutual respect for sovereignty and
understanding diverse points of view.
Education and Understanding.
At base, however, education and understanding are key to
success in dealing with political war. Thus, the political issue in
conflict dominates threat and response at two related levels: (1)
leader development and (2) development of strategic clarity.
Leader Development. The ambiguous multidimensional political psychological
nature of contemporary political conflict situations
forces the redefinition of long-used terms. In this connection, civilian
and military leaders at all levels must learn that:

• The enemy is not necessarily a recognizable military entity or
an industrial capability to make traditional war. The enemy is
also the individual political actor that plans and implements
illegal violence, and exploits the causes of violence for his
own self-determined purposes. In these terms, another very
real enemy is recognized now to exist in the form of poverty,
disease, and other nonhuman destabilizers that must be dealt
with early and aggressively.

• Power is no longer confined to combat firepower directed at
a uniformed enemy military formation or industrial complex.
Power is multilevel, consisting of coordinated political,
psychological, moral, informational, economic, social, military,
and police activity that can be brought to bear discretely on
the causes as well as the perpetrators of illegal violence.

• Victory or success is not an unconditional surrender marked
by a formally signed document terminating a conflict. In the
absence of an easily identifiable human foe to attack and
destroy, there is no specific territory to take and hold, no single
credible government or political actor with which to deal, no
guarantee that any agreement between or among contending
authorities will be honored, and no specific rules to guide
leadership in a given civil-military engagement process.

42

Victory, perhaps with an international impetus, is now
more and more defined as the achievement of a sustainable
peace. Those who would declare victory and go home before
achieving the foundations for a sustainable peace must be
prepared to return and deal with the problem again―and
again.

• Conflict is not a military-to-military war of attrition.
Conflict now involves entire populations. It involves a large
number of national civilian and military agencies, external
national civilian organizations, international organizations,
nongovernmental organizational and subnational indigenous
actors, all dealing one way or another with myriad threats
to global, regional, and national security, peace, and wellbeing.

Thus, conflict is not only multidimensional, but also multiorganizational....

• Finally, at this level, contemporary conflict situations are not
limited―they are total. Conflict is not a kind of appendage―a
lesser or limited thing―to the development or disruption of
collective or individual well-being. As long as nonhuman
destabilizers such as poverty and disease exist that can
lead to the destruction of a people, a society, and/or a
government―there is conflict. These are the root causes that
human destabilizers exploit to implement their programs to
take down violently a government, destroy a society, or cause
great harm to a society.

Educational Solutions for Strategic Clarity. At a minimum, there
are seven educational and cultural imperatives to modify traditional
war and ethno-centric mindsets, and to develop the leader
judgment needed to deal more effectively with complex, politically
dominated, multidimensional, multiorganizational, multinational,
and multicultural contingencies:

• Strategic civilian and military leaders at all levels must
learn the fundamental nature of subversion and insurgency,
with particular reference to the way in which military and
nonmilitary and lethal and nonlethal force can be employed

43

to achieve political ends; and the way in which political
considerations affect the use of force. Additionally, leaders
need to understand the strategic and political-psychological
implications of operational and tactical actions.
• Strategic leaders must understand that the number of
battlefield victories or the number of enemies arrested or
killed has meaning only to extent that such actions contribute
directly to the legitimate strengthening of the state.
• Civilian and military personnel must be able to operate
effectively and collegially in coalitions or multinational
contingents. They must also acquire the ability to deal
collegially with civilian populations and local and global
media. As a consequence, efforts that enhance interagency as
well as international cultural awareness―such as civilian and
military exchange programs, language training programs,
and combined (multinational) exercises―must be revitalized
and expanded.

• Strategic leaders must learn how to cooperatively and
collegially plan and implement an operation employing a
full complex of diverse organizations―internal agencies,
international organizations, nongovernmental organizations,
and coalition/partnership civil-military organizations.
• Strategic leaders must learn that an intelligence capability
several steps beyond the usual is required for small political insurgency
wars. This capability involves active utilization of
intelligence operations as a dominant element of both strategy
and tactics. Thus, commanders and leaders at all levels must
be responsible for collecting and exploiting timely intelligence.
The lowest military echelon where adequate intelligence assets
generally have been concentrated is at the division or brigade
level. Yet, military operations in most contemporary conflicts
are normally conducted by battalion and smaller units.
• Strategic civilian and military leaders must understand that
nonstate political actors in any kind of intrastate conflict
are likely to have at their disposal an awesome array of
conventional and unconventional weaponry. Political wars

44

have and will continue to place military forces and civilian
support contingents into harm’s way. Thus, leadership must
be prepared to deal effectively and decisively with that kind
of threat.

• Finally, leadership at all levels must understand that
generating a more complete unity of effort and concomitant
strategic clarity is imperative in contemporary political war.
Strategic leaders must establish the appropriate politicalorganizational
mechanisms to achieve effective national
and coalitional unity of effort. They must ensure that the
application of the various national and international civilian
and military instruments of power contributes directly to the
achievement of a mutually agreed―or mandated―end-state.
The Strategic Application of U.S. Military Power. At the outset, it
should be noted that the ultimate responsibility for stability and
security lies with governments directly involved in political war.
Yet, the United States and other Western countries as interested
outside actors, have indispensable experience, resources, and
political influence that can adapt military efficacy to a given strategic
threat. This task, with those outlined above, extends to professional
multilateral civil-military education and leader development:
Primary Recommendations. At the least, a carefully designed
and relatively modest assistance program could increase vastly
the speed at which civil-military institutions professionalize and
modernize themselves. A short list of the most important areas for
improvement would include:
• Development of strategy,
• Development of end-state planning capabilities,
• Training and doctrine for joint and combined operations,
• Improvement in the collection, fusion, evaluation, and
dissemination of usable and timely intelligence,
• Development of quick-reaction capabilities, and
• Improvement in transport capability and lift.

45

Some More Advanced Recommendations. A short list of
additional areas for improvement would include:
• Help define and implement nontraditional national
interests centering on national “well-being” and effective
sovereignty (control of territory and the body politic),
• Help implement the application of all the instruments
of national and international power―including the full
integration of legitimate civilian partners―as a part of a
synergistic security/stability process,
• Help teach and apply the notion of indirect engagement
versus direct involvement,
• Help teach and apply the notion of multiple centers of
gravity, and how to defend one’s own centers of gravity
as well as attack those of an opponent,
• Help teach and apply the power of information and public
diplomacy and an understanding of the penalties that
are paid when these instruments of power are not used,
channeled, or harnessed,
• Help indigenous leadership understand that governmental
inaction can be as much of a threat to stability and security
as any other destabilizer, and
• Ensure that direct and indirect military aid to a given
government makes a specific contribution to its strategic
objectives of promoting democracy, human rights,
economic development, social justice, personal and
collective security, and creating an environment for
sustainable peace.

A Cautionary Concluding Note.

The above outline of fundamental strategic recommendations
takes us back to where we began. This list of recommendations
provides the basis for the understanding and judgment that civilian
and military leaders must have to be clear on what the situation
is and what it is not. The hard evidence over time underscores the
46....
wisdom of Clausewitz’s dictum, “The first, the supreme, the most
far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and the commander
have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they
are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into,
something that is alien to its nature.”106
These recommendations take us beyond doing “something” for
something’s sake. They take us beyond developing budgets, force
structure, and equipment packages for a given crisis situation.
They take us beyond asking, “What are we going to do?” “Who is
going to command and control the effort?” “How is it to be done?”

These imperatives take us to the development of a mutually agreed upon
strategic vision (that is, the political end-game). In turn, these
imperatives take us to the cooperative, holistic, and long-term
planning and implementation of the strategic ends, ways and means
that directly support the achievement of the political end-game.107
There is very little glamor, only a few sound bites, and not
many career enhancement possibilities inherent in much of the work
outlined above, but it does have great potential for directing progress
toward democracy, stability, and sustainable peace......

Monday, June 08, 2009

USS Liberty, a sad anniversary.....?

http://sites.google.com/site/usslibertyinquiry/

USS Liberty, a sad anniversary..... “Operation Cyanide”....?

http://newhk.blogspot.com/2009/01/us-navy-had-its-revenge-in-1968-for.html

The 42nd anniversary, June 8, of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 middle east war will receive no mainstream media attention. Obama will lay no wreath on the graves of those who died.....

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/the-man-with-the-israeli-accent-uss-liberty-survivor%E2%80%99s-life-threatened-by-mossad-on-american-soil-while-uncle-sam-yawns/


The success of the cover up emboldened the perpetrators. No U.S. official dares to stand up publicly against the Israeli crimes and influence. The road from June 8, 1967 to September 11, 2001 and beyond has its many twists and turns and should remind us that that deception is the way of war.

Cui bono.... A Photographic Essay of Israel’s Treachery
The USS Liberty, June 8, 1967
.

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0027.jpg
Torpedo hole as seen from drydock- USS Liberty

Denied Infamy
Deserving of infamy was the deliberate Israeli air and naval attack upon the USS Liberty, a clearly marked naval intelligence ship, on June 8, 1967. After several hours of aerial surveillance, unmarked aircraft attacked the USS Liberty with gunfire, rockets and napalm. This was followed by an attack by three motor torpedo boats, firing torpedoes and then machine-gunning the ship, its crew and their lifeboats. The ship managed to get out a call for help under extraordinary circumstances, but was nearly sunk, and more than 200 American sailors and Marines were killed or wounded. Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity, and the US Government accepted that explanation.

Both lied, and Israel’s lies become evident when one examines the profiles of the USS Liberty and the Egyptian ship the Israelis supposedly thought they were attacking, plus a photo of the USS Liberty itself. Misidentification in a December gale in the North Atlantic might have been possible. On a June day in the Eastern Mediterranean, never, at least by any pilot with the visual acuity to take off and land his aircraft.

Remember that in 1967, Israel’s fighters and motor torpedo boats had to get close to use their on-board weapons against a target. Anyone seeing the radars and electronic arrays on the USS Liberty knew this was not some Egyptian tramp steamer. Finally, there is the USN designation “GTR5” on both sides of the bow & the stern, with the number larger than the letters -- anyone approaching the ship close enough to attack cannot miss that designation, and know that this was a US Navy ship.

Why the Attack....

A New Twist...in 2010....

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/spingola/100604#fn18

But the Israelis attacked anyway, and tried very hard to sink the ship without any survivors while concealing their own identity. They were aided and abetted by US President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who personally recalled separate flights of fighters launched from the 6th Fleet’s aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America, fighters whose arrival over the USS Liberty would have saved most American lives and cost the Israelis a number of aircraft and motor torpedo boats.

What Johnson and McNamara did is appalling. As a Marine who served in Vietnam, I have always despised them for their arrogance and incompetence. After understanding their role in the USS Liberty tragedy, I now despise them twice over for their cowardice and their dereliction of duty, and for giving precedence to a domestic Jewish lobby and their own political interests over the lives of Americans in uniform.
At the very least, both were indictable accessories after the fact in the murder at sea of 34 Americans and a breach of international law, in open violation of their own oaths of office.

So why did the Israelis do it? One possibility is that for them, it was simply business as usual. Israel has a long history of attacking anything in its path – a civilian airliner, UN posts and officials, refugee camps, hospitals, the lot -- and then denying culpability, so the question is not "why," but "why not?" Another was to dispose of inconvenient witnesses to the murder of Egyptian prisoners and civilians at El Arish.

A third was to cloak their strategy of involving Jordan so as to take East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And a fourth was to show other Arab countries that they had such influence in the US that they could do it and get away with it, and perhaps involve the US militarily on their side.

Fixing Things

Any of these would have sufficed. What is important to note is that the Israelis had no qualms about deliberately killing Americans and concealing their own identity, doubtless hoping to bring the US in on their side openly attacking Egypt -- they won handily anyway, but they could not be certain of doing so at the beginning of the war. It is something to keep in mind as a possible precedent when we look later at the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 and made the US an active belligerent intent on destroying Israel’s enemies.

The tale of the USS Liberty needs to reach the American people. It needs to reach them in a medium that will convey the calculated nature of the attack and the outrage it should evoke. And it should conclude with the statements of so many people in positions of authority at the time who said categorically that the attack was deliberate, and of survivors who lost shipmates there and likewise are convinced that the attack was deliberate and that their own government abandoned them at the time of the attack, and betrayed them afterwards.

Few events are so calculated to enrage Americans as the image of a US ship being deliberately attacked and Americans being killed and wounded by a supposed ally, for its own local purposes. That this “ally's” influence in the US government was so great that a US president ordered back fighters whose arrival would have prevented most of the 200 casualties on the USS Liberty from occurring would compound that outrage. And that this influence allowed Israel both to evade retribution at the time and to conceal knowledge of what happened from the American people, would add insult to compound outrage.

This is the factually accurate message Americans need to see and hear, and it is a message that could impact sharply on what members of Congress -- whose jobs depend on votes even more than they do on Jewish money -- would be prepared to do to or for Israel. It could also give President Obama political room for diplomatic maneuver IF he seriously would like to reorient the way the US does its business in the Middle East.

AIPAC, its cohorts and the hasbara crowd will howl. There will be the usual flurry of fabrications, denials, falsehoods, fear-mongering, character assassination and disinformation that is their specialty. But at the end of the day, more and more Americans will see graphic portrayals of an American ship attacked -- and especially of uniformed Americans killed and wounded -- by a foreign country named Israel, whose domestic clout within the United States in 1967 allowed them to do it with impunity, and whose extended clout since that time has already produced one American tragedy (9/11), taken the US into two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and is pointing the US towards two more wars (Iran and Syria). And there is a good chance that a growing number of Americans will say, "Enough! Never again...." and make things happen. Let us begin.

by Alan Sabrosky

source: Ziopedia


Dead in the Water - The Attack on the USS Liberty - videos

Why in the hell do Americans have to depend on the BBC for a decent doc on the murderous activities of Israel?

More vile "anti-Semites." The USS Liberty crew

The following exchanges are excerpts of testimony from U.S. military and diplomatic officials given to Alison Weir, founder of “If Americans Knew” and author of American Media Miss the Boat:
Israeli pilot to ground control: “This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?”

Ground control: “Yes, follow orders.”

“But sir, it’s an American ship — I can see the flag!”

Ground control: “Never mind; hit it!”
And Israel has been "hitting" the USA ever since. Hitting us for an unlimited amount of money to support that Apartheid nightmare and for advanced weaponry, which our corrupt Congress gladly hands over to Israel who then reverse engineers the weapon, slaps a Yiddish sounding name on our stolen work and sells it to Communist China.{more}


Israel's False Flag Attack on the USS Liberty, 1967
"We had been surveilled all morning and part of the afternoon by Israeli forces. They knew who we were. We heard them reporting over radio who we were and how we were sailing and where we were sailing. They saw the flag and everything else. We were in international waters." {more}

The USS Liberty Cover Up

Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.

The official US investigation is discredited. And with it, every claim of innocence for Israel that relied on the official investigation as a source.

The real question facing the American people is why the US Government seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince Israel not to kill any more Americans. {more}


Forgetting What They Don't Want You to Know

“People may dismiss what I say as the rantings of an angry old man, but given what is taking place today regarding the war in the Middle East and everything that may happen, my suggestion is that–while there is time–people turn off the Britney Spears, the Desperate Housewives and the football games and listen, listen carefully to what happened, as it is likely to happen again, because, as the old saying goes, ‘a leopard does not change its spots.’”

— Phil Tourney, Survivor of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty {more}


The USS Liberty blog...Phillip F. Tourney

Things are very tense in the Middle East and as a survivor of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty 41 years ago I am convinced that the truth about what happened to us can change the world and change what people believe about “poor old Israel”, as the Liberty story is the straw that will break the back of the Zionist Government murderers. Americans will not stand with Israel when the Liberty truth is told, and it is our duty to get this done now! {more}

Israel has never been punished for their crime against the crew of the USS Liberty
Congress continues to ignore the facts of the Liberty attack as well as the pleas for an investigation.

What is Congress afraid of?...Could it be the fact that AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) lines the pockets of many of our Senators and Congressmen? The Center for Responsive Politics reports that between the years of 1990-2004, pro-Israel groups gave $56.8 million in campaign contributions to U.S. politicians.

On this the 42nd anniversary of the criminal attack on the USS Liberty, please take a moment to remember those killed and injured that day, and also, take the time to contact your Congressman and Senators to demand an official investigation into this tragedy.

To the USS Liberty survivors and the families of those lost...You have not been forgotten by your fellow Americans and we will continue to fight and demand justice for the Liberty! {more}

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SilpwmvkTDI/AAAAAAAAUHg/WGC6PDU9918/s400/lockwood1.jpg

Remember what Israel did to the USS Liberty and what our government did to us.








January , 2009 -- SPECIAL REPORT. The U.S. Navy had its revenge in 1968 for the Israeli attack on the Liberty...

Two incidents in the eastern Mediterranean only a little over six months apart involving Israeli and U.S. military forces may lie at the heart of two major cover-ups. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the willful Israeli attack on the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence collection ship, the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967, during the Israeli-Arab "Six Day War," was followed by the U.S. Navy sinking the Israeli submarine, the INS Dakar, in January 1968...

There are also indications that U.S. Navy distrust of the Israeli military and intelligence services continued long after the Israeli attack on the Liberty, an attack that killed 34 US. naval personnel, including NSA signals intelligence analysts, and wounded over 170 other crewmen on board.

The Israeli attack on the Liberty has been mired in controversy ever since the day it occurred. Israel continues to stand by the story that it attacked the clearly-identifiable U.S. ship in international waters north of Sinai because it had been mistaken for an Egyptian vessel. However, many top American naval and government personnel, including the then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Thomas Moorer, CIA director Richard Helms, NSA deputy director Louis Tordella, Undersecretary of State George Ball, Undersecretary of the Navy Paul Warnke, Clark Clifford, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, rejected the Israeli contention. U.S. military officials, as well as diplomats and journalists, have concluded over the years that Israel's attack on the Liberty was purposeful and designed to destroy the vessel and kill its crew. Illinois Senator Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL) was defeated in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election largely by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) money after he questioned Israel's version of events about its attack on the Liberty. Stevenson lost by 1/7 of 1 percent of the vote in a recount after the first count showed him winning.

In June 1967, President Lyndon Johnson was planning on running for re-election. Knowing that making an issue of the Israeli attack on the Liberty would hurt his standing among deep-pocketed Jewish contributors to the Democratic Party, Johnson buried the incident.

Just five days after the Israel attack, on June 13, 1967, Johnson was asked about the Liberty at a White House press conference. "Q: Mr. President, do you have any more facts that you can release on the attack on the USS Liberty?" Johnson incredulously answered "No. I think you know about as much about it as we do." Certainly, if Johnson included the NSA in "we," the NSA certainly knew that its vessel had been purposely attacked by the Israelis. But Johnson remained silent. Moreover, there have been several credible reports over the years that Johnson ordered a major cover-up of the incident not only to curry favor with Jewish Democrats in return for their tamping down their criticism of the Vietnam War but also to preserve America's close relationship with Israel, a relationship to which Johnson was fully committed.

Johnson continued to cover up the Liberty attack in his memoirs, "The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 1963-1969," published in 1971. Johnson wrote: "June 8 began on a note of tragedy. A morning news bulletin [emphasis added] reported that a U.S. Navy communications ship, the Liberty, had been torpedoed in international waters off the Sinai coast. For 70 tense minutes we had no idea who was responsible, but at 11 o'clock we learned that the ship had been attacked in error [emphasis added] by Israeli gunboats and planes. Ten men of the Liberty crew were killed and a hundred were wounded [emphasis added, Johnson was in error on both counts, 34 men were killed and 173 were wounded]. This heartbreaking grieved the Israelis deeply, as it did us. There was a possibility that the incident might lead to even greater misfortune, and it was precisely to avoid further confusion and tragedy that I sent a message to Chairman Kosygin on the hot line. I told him exactly what had happened and advised him that carrier aircraft were on their way to the scene to investigate. I wanted him to know, I said, that investigation was the sole purpose of these flights, and I hoped he would inform the proper parties. Kosygin replied that our message had been received and the information had been relayed immediately to the Egyptians."

The fact that Johnson used the hot line to contact the Soviets was an indication that they were aware of the Israeli attack on the Liberty and that what Johnson said "exactly what happened" was a lie and the Soviets, who had a massive naval and intelligence presence in the eastern Mediterranean saw through Johnson's big lie.

That Johnson was willing to cover up a major naval incident would also be of use to the Soviets in May 1968 when another incident involving a Soviet submarine and the nuclear submarine USS Scorpion would require a mutual cover-up by the White House and Kremlin.

On December 19, 1980, the United States and Israel formally closed the chapter on the Liberty attack. The agreement came a little over a month that the U.S. ship, the SS Poet, which had delivered arms from Philadelphia to Iran as part of a secret "October Surprise" deal worked out by the Reagan-Bush campaign and the Iranians to ensure that Iran did not agree to a U.S. embassy hostage release before the November election, was sunk with the help of Israeli forces after delivering its cargo to Iran. Thirty-four American seamen died on board the Poet, ironically the same number that died on board the Liberty. The Israelis agreed to pay the United States $6 million in addition to the $7 million it previously paid to the families of the 34 dead U.S. servicemen and the wounded crewmen.

Originally, the State Department wanted $17 million to cover repairs to the Liberty plus accrued interest. Shortly after President Jimmy Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ephraim Evron, quietly asked Vice President Walter Mondale to forgive the $10 million in accrued interest and whittle the $7.5 million in damages to $6 million. Of course, the Israelis had the trump card: that the Reagan-Bush team told them that the Carter White House was working on its own "October Surprise" to ship arms to Iran in return for a pre-election release of the U.S. hostages. The blackmailed worked. The Liberty and Poet, and the combined 68 crewmen who lost their lives from Israeli military action, would remain forgotten.

The cover-up would even extend to Arlington National Cemetery. The grave markers of six Liberty crewmen who died from the Israeli attack were simply notated: "died in the Eastern Mediterranean, June 8, 1967." Nothing indicated they died from hostile military action. In June 1982, just prior to the anniversary of the Liberty attack, the markers were revised by the Department of the Army to read: "Killed, USS Liberty, June 8, 1967."

There is reason to believe that two major branches of the U.S. military -- the U. S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force -- began to part company over relations with Israel as early as June 1967. In a 1984 book titled "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel," author Stephen Green reveals that the Liberty was attacked by the Israelis because the ship detected a secret U.S. Air Force operation in the Negev Desert during the Six Day War. The secret Israeli nuclear weapons plant at Dimona is located in the Negev. Any collaboration between the Air Force and Israelis as early as 1967 would go a long way in explaining Israel's links to the recent breakdown in the nuclear security at U.S. Air Force bases in Minot, North Dakota; Barksdale, Louisiana; and F. E Warren in Wyoming and the mercurial rise in influence of former Israeli Air Force major Dr. Lani Kass in U.S. Air Force strategic planning operations.

On May 6, 1992, the columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak responded in a letter to the New York Times to an attack on their column by long-time Israel apologist Abe Rosenthal, the former executive editor of the New York Times. In November 1991, Evans and Novak reported that the Israelis knew the Liberty was an American ship when they attacked it. Rosenthal tried to insinuate that one of the columnists' sources, former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter, would not confirm Evans' and Novak's earlier report. The columnists wrote about Rosenthal's sloppy journalism: ". . . Mr. Rosenthal insinuated in his column that Mr. Porter would not confirm what we wrote because he 'did not return my call.' Three days later, after reading the column, Mr. Porter wrote Mr. Rosenthal that he had in now way intended to 'evade' him but was not home when the 'one and only call came.' 'I stand by the essential facts set forth in the Evans-Novak column with respect to the attack on the Liberty," Mr. Porter wrote. Neither Mr. Rosenthal or The Times chose to let readers in on that confirming fact, ignoring the damage to our reputation by Mr. Rosenthal's accusation. In his letter to Mr. Rosenthal, a copy of which was sent to us, the former Ambassador wrote: "I brought a piece of history into the public domain, which should have been done much earlier by others. This was not done, as you suggest, because I was an 'opponent of Israel." Nor are we, no matter what Mr. Rosenthal may think."

Novak once told this reporter in answer to a question about his late partner Evans, "Rowlie was known for his excellent contacts at the CIA."

In a July 18, 1967, report to Johnson by Clark Clifford, the chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), Clifford wrote, "the unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

Captain William McGonagle, the commanding officer of the Liberty, who was also severely wounded in the Israeli attack, died in March 1999. McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1968 for his actions in saving his ship but, in keeping with Johnson's cover-up, the award ceremony was not held at the White House but at a quiet affair at the Washington Navy Yard. In 1997, McGonagle broke his long silence and said the Israeli attack on the Liberty was willful and not an error. In 1998, while taking a shower, McGonagle discovered a piece of shrapnel from the Israeli attack had been dislodged and was sticking out through his ribs. He pulled the shrapnel out from his body and collapsed in pain in the shower.

Although the crew of the Liberty have long felt that they were forgotten, I have learned of a tantalizing U.S. Navy retaliation for the Israeli attack on the Liberty from U.S. intelligence sources. In September 1967, Johnson had decided that he would not run for re-election. It was a mere three months after he covered-up the Israeli attack on the Navy ship to preserve his standing with Jewish voters and contributors. Johnson's decision changed the picture dramatically and the top echelon of the Navy and CIA, which knew of Israel's premeditated attack knew that the time was ripe for a counter-attack.

In November 1967, a two-sentence Reuters item appeared in the newspapers: "Portsmouth, England, Nov. 10 -- Israel commissioned her [emphasis added, the use of the feminine descriptor for Israel has long been a puzzle] fourth submarine here today, a craft bought second hand from the British Navy, after a two-year refitting operation. Israel bought the 1,280-ton vessel, renamed the Dakar, with a sister ship, the Leviathan, in November, 1964." Dakar, Hebrew for "shark," was a World War II-vintage submarine before its three year retrofit began in Portsmouth in 1964.

Little did the 69-member commissioning crew of the Dakar realize, but their submarine was a marked target the minute they departed Portsmouth.

On January 26, 1968, it was the British Admiralty, not the Israeli Naval headquarters in Haifa, the destination of the Dakar, that first reported the submarine was missing. The British reported the Dakar's last known position was some 100 miles west of Cyprus. The Israelis, for the most part, treated the submarine's disappearance as a state secret. Even after Haifa Navy radio began broadcasting SOS distress calls to commercial vessels to be on the look out for the Dakar, Israeli officials in Jerusalem would not even admit the submarine was missing. The Israelis later admitted the last signal it received from Dakar was at mid-day on January 26, at a position southwest of Cyprus. The last message from Dakar's deputy commander, Major Avraham Barkai, was "The Dakar is in the depths at full strength."

Significantly, the British destroyer Diana and the U.S. destroyer Turner deployed to the area around the last datum of the Dakar with decompression equipment for any survivors.

The Israelis adamantly denied that the Dakar sank as the result of hostile action. However, a retaliatory strike by the U.S. Navy, aided by its close ally Britain, would not be "hostile action" but revenge for a deliberate Israeli attack on the Liberty known not only to the top echelons of the U.S. Navy, CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and State Department, but also to senior British military and intelligence officials through NSA's British counterpart and partner, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which maintained a number of listening stations in Cyprus.

There was a report that searchers in Cyprus intercepted a signal on the same radio frequency used by the Dakar's radio buoy and that it may have been a distress call. At first, the buoy could not be found by search vessels and planes. There were also reports that U.S., British, Israeli, Greek, and Turkish vessels and planes had spotted oil slicks, oil drums, and floating wreckage but these reports soon ceased. In 1969, Israeli officials revealed that an emergency buoy from the Dakar had washed ashore 90 miles south of Tel Aviv.

Suddenly, and without further comment, Israel called off its search on February 4, 1968. The Israelis stated that the Dakar was involved in crash diving exercises on its return voyage and probably as a result of a mechanical failure. On April 25, 1968, Vice Admiral Abraham Botzer, the commander of the Israeli Navy, stated that the Dakar sank from "technical or human malfunctioning." He ruled out "foul play," a change in terminology from previous denials that "hostile action" sank the Dakar. The Dakar was reported to have gone down on January 24, 1968, two days before the British Admiralty's first announcement.

The Israeli admiral's statement was far from the end of the story about the Dakar. On January 1, 1970, the Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reported that the Dakar had been sunk by an Egyptian naval vessel with depth charges. The Israeli government merely responded by stating there was no evidence to substantiate the Egyptian charges. Later, an Israeli army spokesman called the Egyptian report "absolute nonsense," iterating that an Israeli court of inquiry could never determine the cause of the sinking. However, the Israeli army spokesman changed the date of the Dakar's sinking to January 25, 1968, the third date change by the Israelis. Later reports said radio contact was lost with the Dakar on January 24, south of Crete.

Oddly, on August 25, 1986, the New York Times, in an article by John Cushman, Jr., reported that the U.S. Navy was going to conduct a search for the Dakar, not in waters west of Cyprus, but in Egyptian waters, ironically, in waters close to where the Liberty was attacked in 1967. The Navy committed P-3 Orion marine reconnaissance and USS Forrestal-based S-3 anti-submarine warfare aircraft for the search. Private contractors were hired by the Navy to examine the submarine's hull in the event it was located. During the 1980s, the Israelis used a salvage vessel with Egyptian liaison officers on board to look for the Dakar in waters north of Sinai. There were three such missions that turned up empty handed. The U.S. Navy had originally offered Israel to help locate the Dakar and an agreement was hammered out that the Egyptians would cooperate in the search. The search in Egyptian waters was unsuccessful as was one conducted off of the Greek island of Rhodes.

In 1997, there was another strange twist to the tale of the Dakar. A book titled "Dakar," written by former Israeli Navy Captain Michael Eldar, was yanked off bookshelves in Israel on national security grounds. Police confiscated copies of the book and other documents from Eldar's home. Oddly, the book had already been cleared for publication by Israel's military censorship authority. Eldar's book contained an astonishing revelation: that the search for the Dakar had never been serious. The question remains, if the Israelis and others conducted a half-hearted search for the Israeli submarine, what was the reason?

Then, there was another strange turn. In October 1998, Israel began running advertisements in newspapers in a number of countries offering rewards of between $5,000 and $300,000 for any information on the fate of the Dakar. Ads were placed in newspapers in Turkey, Egypt, France, Greece, and Russia. Strangely, France lost one of its submarines, the Minerve, in the western Mediterranean as the search for the Dakar was underway in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of January 1968.

The Minerve disappeared 25 miles southeast of the French naval base of Toulon with 52 men on board. The Minerve's commander, up to a week before its deployment from Toulon, said he had never had any problems with the vessel. The U.S. Navy submarine rescue ship, the USS Petrel, which was en route from Gibraltar to assist in the search for the Dakar, was diverted to help find the Minerve. On January 31, the French Navy declared the Minerve lost at sea. On March 4, 1970, the French suffered an eerie replay. The submarine Eurydice,with a crew of 57, was lost 35 miles east of Toulon, in the same general area where the Minerve was lost two years earlier. A large explosion was detected by the French Navy and some papers from the Eurydice were found floating on the ocean surface. Two years earlier, President Charles de Gaulle had attended a memorial service for the Minerve on board the Eurydice.

The Israeli ads on information about the Dakar were placed in Russian papers in an attempt to attract a retired Russian naval officer who might have information.

Interestingly, the planes used by the Israelis to attack the Liberty were French-made Dassault Mirage III fighters.

At the end of May 1999, a U.S.-Israeli search team, with the U.S. firm Nauticos as prime contractor, finally located the Dakar in 9500-feet of water between Cyprus and Crete. The Nauticos underwater robotic equipment used to find the Titanic was used to locate the Dakar. The Dakar was found on its original course, not off of Egypt as thought earlier by some searchers.

The Dakar was found on the bottom with its bow section intact. According to an eyewitness account by Brigadier General Gideon Raz, who was a former deputy commander of the Israeli Navy, the middle part of the submarine was heavily damaged with amidships debris scattered on the sea floor. The aft section was completely separated from the rest of the submarine. The Dakar's reported debris field coincides with the information received from U.S. intelligence sources. The submarine was broken in two aft of the conning tower. The actual story related to us is that the Dakar was hit by a lightweight acoustic homing air-dropped torpedo. The mission was highly compartmented and classified. Yet it proved to the Israelis that some sectors in the U.S. military and intelligence community had no problem in killing 69 Israeli sailors in retaliation for Israel's attack on the Liberty and the loss of 34 U.S. sailors.

There would be yet one more strange postscript to the story of the Dakar. Mere hours after hearing that the Dakar had been located, retired Israeli Navy Commander, Admiral Michael Barkai, committed suicide. Barkai's brother, Avraham, had been the deputy commander of the Dakar who was lost with the other 68 crewmen....


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/