This would be quite a dramatic False Flag, not as big as Pearl Harbor, but big enough to give Cheney an excuse to go to war. We have seen how it now takes a decade or two to get out of a war the Empire starts, no matter how crapulous the reason. And we know that the American military is cannon fodder to the neocons. Thanks for posting this to raise awareness.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1416 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 11:39:52 PM

  (0+)

The possibility that an aircraft carrier would be sunk and a debacle result from Iran unleashing Sunburn and other anti-ship missiles can't be lightly dismissed. I found Gaffney's article on Iran's military offensive capacities with the Sunburn anti-ship cruise missile to be very persuasive and alarming. A 1997 Senate discussion confirmed that Iran does possess such anti-ship missiles.

Most military analysts agree that the US Navy is very exposed in the Persian Gulf with the kind of missile capabilities possessed by Iran which can use the missiles from mountainous territory overlooking the Persian Gulf.

This would help explain widespread military opposition to an attack on Iran. It makes sense that Admiral Fallon, Commander of Central Command, would be opposed to any military action that would threaten any Navy carrier groups in or near the Persian Gulf, and the debacle that would result in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A reasonable conclusion to be drawn from Cheney and the neo-cons plans for an attack on Iran is that they want the US military to suffere devastating losses in the Persian Gulf. The goal would be a severe weakening of the U.S military which today is the only effective opposition to the neo-con agenda.

by Dr Michael Salla (22 articles, 19 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 12:35:28 AM

  (0+)

It's interesting how you begin your post with a preamble about how your article is not meant to mislead - then proceed to mislead left and right.   First off and most glaring are your assertions that all your information comes from a "US Navy Forum" and therefore people should take "special note" of its contents.

The site is no more an official US Navy Forum than Michael Jackson is head of the Boys and Girls Club.  The Navy has conducted exercises in the Gulf for years and will continue to do so for years.  Anyone that signs up for an account on Topix can post anything they'd like in that forum.  It's no different than starting a Yahoo Group and calling it "US Navy Forum".  I would think would be considered quite obvious given the many responses to the absurd charges, but maybe those all hid from you in plain view. 

A little simple research will reveal that Mr. Liggett is all over the internet spreading conspiracy theories that are completely false and undocumented. Your journalist integrity lacks the latter.  But, I guess that doesn't matter to your or your readers.

by CJ (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 9:08:27 AM

  (0+)

If you don't think Black Ops types in Israel and the U.S. are at least thinking about operations like this, then you are being naive. This is certainly worth taking note of. To actually produce regime change in Iran, which will likely require mobilizing at least 500,000 troops to colonize the country, maybe more, will require a strong catalyst.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1416 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 10:12:54 AM

  (0+)

Why do lefties such as you and Dave Lindorff believe that effin' creepazoid?

His program, The Hal Turner Show, is webcast from his home. ... NY High School, Turner, working with a neo-Nazi group called the National Vanguard [11], ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner

In a late 2000 interview published in Resistance, a neo-Nazi magazine, .... Not long after, he started up "The Hal Turner Show," renting time on shortwave ...
www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215

by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 9:34:11 AM

  (0+)

I noted Herr Turner's name immediately, but that doesn't mean that everything that passes thourgh his website is Nazi propaganda. I have sourced hard Right-wing and Apocalyptic Evangelical blogs at times if they have a good news story or link.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1416 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 10:17:55 AM

  (0+)

As usual, those that support Bush and the Neo-conservative agenda grab on to anything to attempt and discredit honest reporting and commentary. Why did either of the above two commentators fail to recognize this statement?

"and with our history of False-Flag attacks, this is a matter that we need to keep on eye on - whether it’s a probability, possibility, or in the alternative, pure poppycock.

I have no inside information that any of the above is true, and am merely posting this information because if the US was to sacrifice any of our Carriers to start a war with Iran - it would seem highly probable to me that we would sacrifice the USS Enterprise since it is due to be deactivated upon completion of the CVNX 1."

The piece was posted for informational purposes, and as I stated, whether you believe the US is capable of False-Flad attacks - it is a matter of public record that we have done so in the past, and with Bush and Cheney beating the war drum in regrd Iran - we need to remain vigilent and aware.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 420 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 10:18:48 AM

  (0+)

Turner had me going too with the fake AMERO scam. Turner was saying he had the real deal in his hand, and being new to the internet I believed the creep. Then I found the coins were for sale at AMEROCOINS.com for 5 bucks. Thats after mailing the story all over creation. I felt like a real idiot. Then this government paid COINTELPRO agent broke a story that the nuklar whisleblowers were dead. This time I wasnt so naive and I called Mike Hoffman that broke the nuke story for military times and he told me the whistleblowers were alive and well. CAUTION, anything that comes out of the mouth of Hal Turner is designed to discredit the truth and freedom movements. He is a traitor of the most despicable kind.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 12:20:46 PM

  (0+)

It was more than a year ago when I first began writing about the "Sunburn Missile"; at that time, I lived in Pensacola, Fl., and had several acquaintances that were stationed at NAS Pensacola. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Sunburn is the most fearsome anti-ship missile deployed anywhere in the world and other than Iran - China also has these missiles. {And of couse Russia, their manufacturer.}

They fly at Mach 2.2 - and hugging the water at approximately 50' above the waves, and unless the satellites are specifically tasked to pick-up the launch signatures, any ship only has a matter of seconds to deploy counter-measures because they are only detected once they come across the horizon, and impact is but seconds away - and it's immediately turned over to computer controlled Gatling guns; from the information I was able to gather, one of our carriers and other ships can handle one or two Sunburns at the most – as there simply isn't enough time to respond.

They are deployed by Iran on Chinese made speedboats, smaller craft, by air, and as Mr. Salla said, even in the hills. I'm hoping that enough time has passed since these missiles were deployed that we now have a far more effective way to deal with them in the event of a conflict - because if we don't, our Navy could suffer a horrible loss of ships, and more importantly, the lives of American military personnel.

In regard Hal Turner - what he stated is a possibility with our history of false-flag attacks, although as an American, it's hard to imagine and even more difficult for any of us to wrap our mind around the concept that our own government would be willing to sacrifice the lives of American personnel simply to start a war. In fact, the mere thought is sickening, thus - my reposting of the article. Whether it was true or not, the mere thought that it could happen cannot be ruled-out with Bush and Cheney at the helm - whether we believe it or not. As far out as it is, merely republishing it hopefully will make anyone think twice before even contemplating anything of such a horrendous nature.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 420 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 8:16:03 PM

  (0+)

Three points here:

• The accuracy of the article i.e. it source. I’ve seen this claim before from other sites. It was seen then as a bit of an urban legend. Independent reliable corporative proof would be appropriate.
• However this doesn’t reduce the scariness of the subject. Allowing Americans (interests) to be in harms way and planning on a first strike response from the ‘enemy’ so to justify a war has precedent. The sinking of the ‘Lusitanian’ is proof of this strategy. Marine archaeology and historic research has raised some evidence that the ship was carrying gun cotton in contravention to the law of neutrality. But ‘unexplained’ lapses in protocol identified its location. Hence it may have been a put up job by Pres and Churchill (then minister of the Navy for England).
• Lastly this current strategy of sabre rattling is tantamount to daring the Iranian to strike. This man’s ideology knows no bounds or public restraint. His Presidency is stained by lies, indifference to humanity and executive abuses in order to exercise his retro policies. Therefore this level of duplicitous belligerence is not beyond the pale. Neither is, if pushed though ‘nil funding’ policy would he avert from or discourage a first strike (nuke?) mentality amongst his military ‘gnomes’ (Those officers that believe BFI and mass casualties on both sides are appropriate and acceptable to prove US dominance) on Iran. Whether it is in the longterm interest of the Country " are matters for politicians afterwards...." (afterwards or aftermath my comment) Statement of a general on TV. 

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 10:54:10 PM

  (0+)

The original article presupposes the carrier will be all alone by itself in the gulf without it's cruiser / destroyer screen. A carrier is the least defensible boat (I was Airwing, we called it a boat and if you don't like it, that's just tango sierra) in the entire fleet. In this type of operation, there will be at least one Hummer (E-2C) airborne at all times with its look down radar scanning for anything that doesn't belong there, and if someone tries to shoot them down, everybody will know something nasty is happening. A destroyer or frigate would take the missile before they would allow it to pass through their screen to hit the carrier, but then they are more adapted to that type of warfare. You can bet money someone on the crew of the Big E is familiar with that article and is not about to allow something like that to happen, as that article has been around for at least 7 or 8 months if not longer. War is anything but holy. I detached aboard E in 72, which was my first experience on a flight deck. Aft of the JBD by the island, you were still showered with flakes of flight deck from the exhaust of the RA-5C Vigilantes. You not only watched that huge bird leave the deck, you smelled it, heard and felt it. Everything but taste it. I almost miss the controlled insanity. I guess you can take the boy out of the fleet, but it appears the fleet never fully leaves the boy. You have no idea the memories and feelings writing about a CTF can evoke.

by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 316 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 7:42:34 PM

  (0+)