AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

BOMBS LOADED ONTO F16L JETS OF I.A.F. 119 SQUADRON WERE ‘TAMPERED WITH’ AT TIME OF SYRIAN BOMBING

An Israeli Air Force armourer, a junior commissioned officer with the 119th Squadron, communicating through a third person in the US on conditions of anonymity for obvious reasons, has told how ‘some laser guided ordnance’ was removed from the 25th Air Wing munitions storage facility at Ramon airbase. The ordnance was returned ‘a few days later’ and loaded straight on to two F16L aircraft of 119th Squadron by five men wearing special protective clothing and who were not regular armourers of the 119th Squadron but who had travelled with the returning munitions. The source said that he would normally supervise or help supervise the loading of armaments on to 119th Squadron aircraft. The aircraft then took off and returned ‘several hours’ later with their munitions spent. The source apparently was told that the aircraft had been on a ‘special exercise training mission’. The source went on to say that rumours on the base at that time were that the aircraft had attacked ‘targets in Syria’ but other similar rumours in the media didn’t surface until the following day. All, of course, was neither confirmed not denied by the Israeli authorities. The source says that this happened on the day that the Syrian nuclear facility was bombed, 6 September 2007.

The source has said that he has since left regular service with the IAF but remains a reservist. He has only decided to ‘talk’ since news of the uranium traces found at the Syrian facility emerged recently. He would not confirm that it was the 119th Squadron that bombed or was involved in the bombing of the Syrian facility.

The authenticity of the source cannot be checked; however, the story does seem to fit in with the circumstances and would seem feasible given Israel’s history of false flag operations. The source is not saying that the bombs were dosed with nuclear material but simply that they were clearly irregularly tampered with in unusual circumstances and at a time when the Syrian facility was destroyed.

Readers can make of it what ever they like.


UPDATE

It has been pointed out to me that 119 Squadron of the IAF operate F-16I aircraft and not F-16L's. The mistake is mine as I misread the original email. My apologies for any confusion.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, so much for this rumour.

The IAEA now says the Syrian plant, where uranium was detected, bore features similar to a nuclear reactor:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038934.html

P.S. Further to debunking this "source: Israel does not fly any "F-16 L".

It flies the F-16 I

http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/f-16I-details.htm

Damian Lataan said...

True. I misread my sources email. I thought the 'I' was a small 'L'. The 119th Squadron flies F-16I aircraft; not F-16L's.

As for the IAEA saying that the Syrian plant 'bore features similar to a nuclear reactor', that is a long way from saying it actually was a nuclear reactor and even further away from saying that the uranium traces supposedly found there actually originated from there.

The IAEA love to tread carefully on these matters. They are unable to provide any hard evidence, not for this nor the Iran thing, yet always like to keep the US happy by saying on the verge stuff like 'it bore features similar to a nuclear reactor'.

Well, so much for your debunking.

Go back to the drawing board sunshine; you haven't 'debunked' anything yet. The mistake in aircraft type was mine, not my source.

Anonymous said...

The story needs only limited debunking anyway. It's an internet rumour. What's more, it's an anonymous source. Moreover, it's about whom you yourself concede "The authenticity of the source cannot be checked."

You have to prove a theory before it can be flattened.

It's a bit hard to prove a negative.

Damian Lataan said...

The mainstream media is full of stories originating from ‘sources that need to remain anonymous’ or a ‘spokesperson speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to speak’ for various reasons. These stories too cannot be verified and therefore the authenticity of the source cannot be checked. What’s the difference in this case? Could it be that the story in this case is negative to your polemics and simply doesn’t fit in with what you want to read about? Why should this story have any less credibility than any other story originating from an anonymous source?

If ‘debunking a story’ consisted of merely claiming the story is not true because it comes from an unverifiable source then the news content in our media would be very thin on the ground and if all one needed to do to ‘debunk’ a story was to simply say that it’s an ‘internet rumour’ without any evidence to prove that it was an ‘internet rumour’ then where does that leave the myriad of news stories that appear every day but have no proof of origin or verifiable source and that also often begin life on the internet?

As for your statement that ‘you have to prove a theory before it can be flattened’; if a theory has been proven then it is no longer a theory – it is a fact and, therefore, cannot be ‘flattened’.

justice_via_truth said...

sad specimens ...

  .. insulting their own intelligence

-=*=-

G'day Damian,

it only takes a few second's reflection to realise that the so-called 'middle-East peace-process' they keep on yammering about (60+ years long!) is pure furphy; after all the US and Israel both boast that they are 'the clever ones.' Oh, yeah: so bloody clever that they've been more or less on a permanent war-footing at least a) since the end of WW2 in the case of the US, and b) since the idea of seizing (now sadly mostly ex-) Palestine was 'actualised' in '47/'48 in the case of the I/J/Z-plex.

Both 'powers' are pursuing murder for spoil, in the US case primarily oil (or any other resource the US thinks it 'owns,' as in "How dare those ignorant Muslim/A-rab countries float on lakes of our oil?") and in the I/J/Z-plex case, other people's land and water. Both 'powers' are criminal - that's not to say that the bulk of the people under these 'regimes' are also criminal - but what one can say, in the case of self-claimed 'democracies,' is that the bulk of the voters concerned are somewhat 'negligent' by not arresting (two senses[1]) their respective 'leaderships.' (Same in UK & Aus, BTW. Recall Howard called us anti-wars "a mob, " and then went on to ignore our pleas: "Leave it to Blix! No war!")

To tie this in with the recent attack on Syria, or the endlessly promised attack on Iran, the actual mass-murder for oil in Iraq or the really silly attacks on Afghanistan - the latter basically all for a stupid pipeline, and the purported justification of any and all such attacks by principals, apologists and lying trolls alike, it must be pointed out that whatever they say must be totally distrusted, on the grounds that we've seen them lie all too often before. In any case, force is the refuge of idiots and fools; as if they'd never heard of "Live by the sword, die by the sword." For Israel it will come soon enough; the US will probably go broke first. In each case, their own revolting greed is at the root. They fancifully talk about 'the market' - but they then go on to lie, cheat, steal and murder. Another old saw: "Cheats never prosper." There's nowhere for these criminals to hide.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] arrest —v. 1 lawfully seize (a suspect etc.). 2 stop or check the progress of. [POD]