(1) removing the word "secret" from the HN title removes the only "interesting" element, since the fact that the stark was attacked by an iraqi jet is a matter of record. the article's claim is that it was a dassault bizjet training aircraft (falcon 50) that fired on the stark, as opposed to the dassault fighters (mirage f1) it was supposed to be supporting.
(2) there are no documentary sources cited for the article's claims. (the guy who wrote this writes whole books explicitly relying on unverifiable primary sources as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1841767875) i don't have any particular reason to disbelieve it but i also don't understand the claim that an f1 with a refueling probe and two hardpoints could not possibly have carried two exocets.
(3) the cyrano/exocet combination fingerprinted the iraqi air force even if they hadn't quickly copped to the attack. even if true, knowing this "secret" doesn't change anything.
(2) there are no documentary sources cited for the article's claims. (the guy who wrote this writes whole books explicitly relying on unverifiable primary sources as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1841767875) i don't have any particular reason to disbelieve it but i also don't understand the claim that an f1 with a refueling probe and two hardpoints could not possibly have carried two exocets.
(3) the cyrano/exocet combination fingerprinted the iraqi air force even if they hadn't quickly copped to the attack. even if true, knowing this "secret" doesn't change anything.