USS Liberty [Archive]

Cpt.Fantastic

2nd July 2008, 10:34 PM

Hey guys, first time poster ~

I came across this forum having a debate on another forum regarding 9/11, I began with the standpoint that 9/11 may have been an inside job but the facts do not support the case, though I do feel something is being covered up, gross incompetence perhaps.

Anyhow I came across the USS Liberty. A very interesting case indeed, any rational individual can figure out the attack was intentional and that the ship was known to be an US ship.

First I'll say why I think the attack was intentional and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.

8 Flyovers happened before the attack where the crew report waving to the pilot(s) and having the wave returned, they said they felt rather safe knowing the Isralies knew they where there... This was in the morning and the USS Liberty continued on the same course at around 5 knots.

Remember this was a blue sky day and the US flag was flying high on the ship for all to see. Around two o'clock the attack started, estimates are of around 30 sorties... This wasn't a small attack by any means 'In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of
counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They
found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun
holes.'

After the the Air attack 3 Isreali PT boats fired 6 torpedoes at the USS Liberty and thanks to the commander he missed 5, sadly one did hit killing 25 crew members instantly which tore a hole in the side of the ship under the waterline and seriously compromised the hull.

Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.

You have quite a few reports from numerous credible witnesses saying they heard the communication between the pilots and of the war room... 'It is an American ship... You have your orders... It is an American ship... You have your orders' words to that extent. You also have an Israeli pilot coming forward recently and saying how he was arrested after the incident for failing to carry out his orders...

This Report is filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a California
non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section
501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting on behalf of the surviving crewmembers
of USS Liberty.

- Fail report link gah first post

Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government

CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCTOBER 22, 2003

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman, Liberty Alliance

GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (RET.)*
Former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Vice Chairman, Liberty Alliance

REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Director, Liberty Alliance

AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.)
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Director, Liberty Alliance

-fail link gah

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?

p.s my first post so I cannot put url's in my post... That's handy = / I see why though, dam spammers. If anyone wants the links pm me or so.

gtc

2nd July 2008, 10:48 PM

Welcome aboard,

You can still post links like this:

www . link . com

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 04:58 AM

gumboot

3rd July 2008, 05:51 AM

Based on a general appreciation of naval history in the 20th Century, I find it utterly beyond credibility that a competent naval force could attack a lightly armed merchant ship using fighter-bombers and motor torpedo boats and yet leave that ship still afloat. Any kind of co-ordination between the two attacks, or simply equipping the fighters with some kind of anti-shipping weapon, would easily have been able to sink the USS Liberty leaving no survivors. I can understand the survivors still being angry at the deaths of their crewmates, but the conspiracy theory simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Mistakes like this are common in war.

Dave

The testimony of the survivors themselves confirms that the torpedo boats approached while signaling (although the crew couldn't tell what the message was because of the smoke from the fires) and that the crew of the Liberty fired on the torpedo boats first.

According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

These two accounts are, in fact, totally consistent with each other.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 06:44 AM

I would point out to those who claim that misidentification was 'impossible'.

Remember this was not the Isreali front line troops attacking. The planes were the equivalent of the National Guard. They had limited experience with sea-based identification. Seaborne IDing can be very tricky as there is no real basis for size comparison.

Flybys by Isreali planes in the morning are of little relevance to an attack that took place in the afternoon.

For another incident, I would point out that during WW2, during the hunt for the German Ship Bismark, several Swordfish torpedo bombers accidently attacked the HMS Sheffied, a ship with 1/6 the displacement of the Bismark.

So the Swordfish bombers attacked the Shefflield despite:

a) The size difference
b) The much lower speed of the Swordfish
c) The pilots much greater familiarity with the Sheffield

Yet, somehow pilots flying high speed jets are supposed to see a single flag when Swordfish pilots could not spot the British flag on the familiar Sheffield.

This was not the only misidentification incident. Experienced Egyptian pilots misidentified oil tankers as five-times-the-displacement Aircraft Carriers.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 06:57 AM

Hey guys, first time poster ~

I came across this forum having a debate on another forum regarding 9/11, I began with the standpoint that 9/11 may have been an inside job but the facts do not support the case, though I do feel something is being covered up, gross incompetence perhaps.

Anyhow I came across the USS Liberty. A very interesting case indeed, any rational individual can figure out the attack was intentional and that the ship was known to be an US ship.

First I'll say why I think the attack was intentional and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.

8 Flyovers happened before the attack where the crew report waving to the pilot(s) and having the wave returned, they said they felt rather safe knowing the Isralies knew they where there... This was in the morning and the USS Liberty continued on the same course at around 5 knots.

Remember this was a blue sky day and the US flag was flying high on the ship for all to see. Around two o'clock the attack started, estimates are of around 30 sorties... This wasn't a small attack by any means 'In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of
counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They
found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun
holes.'

After the the Air attack 3 Isreali PT boats fired 6 torpedoes at the USS Liberty and thanks to the commander he missed 5, sadly one did hit killing 25 crew members instantly which tore a hole in the side of the ship under the waterline and seriously compromised the hull.

Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.

You have quite a few reports from numerous credible witnesses saying they heard the communication between the pilots and of the war room... 'It is an American ship... You have your orders... It is an American ship... You have your orders' words to that extent. You also have an Israeli pilot coming forward recently and saying how he was arrested after the incident for failing to carry out his orders...

- Fail report link gah first post

-fail link gah

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?

p.s my first post so I cannot put url's in my post... That's handy = / I see why though, dam spammers. If anyone wants the links pm me or so.

Even with my meager knowledge I have found some issues with the way you present things.

As was already mentioned, the Israeli Torpedo boats fired only after fired upon, a fact which you do not mention. Not mentioning relevant fact such as this will be frowned upon here.

Next, you mention the Israeli helicopters, and remark
Additionally after all of this Israeli helicopters showed up with heavily armed men aboard.
Wow, they had armed men aboard? In war? I am shocked, I tell ya.

More seriously, what is that comment supposed to convey? These helicopters are of interest since their communications with their control tower were intercepted by the NSA. They were declassified in 2003 and you can read the transcripts here (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/nsaliberty.html).

Note that these transcripts were intercepted after the attack, when these helicopters were sent to investigate and save survivors (under the assumption there were man in water). It is clear that at first the control tower considered the ship to be Egyptian. As far as I know these are the only transcripts of relevant Israeli communications that the NSA had.

Failed False Flag Operation? Israel covering up genocide? Something else?
genocide? WTF? :jaw-dropp
You spring 'teh crazy' at the end. Are you really suggesting Israel was performing genocide are the mostly empty desert.

And false flag? False flag is a name to an operation where you are supposed to blame someone else for the operation. All Israeli units involved were clearly marked.

If you ask for my opinion, I believe that the helicopters transcript give strong evidence that Israeli command had no idea that the ship was a US vessel. Should they have known, possibly. Is it possible that the some Israelis polished the truth to cover their asses, after realizing they messed things? Probably. An example would be the claim of the Torpedo boats commander that they identified the ship and being Egyptian. I think that their behaviour is more consistent with not identifying the ship at all, but that just a speculation.

MRC_Hans

3rd July 2008, 07:09 AM

I have only studied the accounts of this incident superficially, but to me, it looks like a typical friendly fire accident. In these incidents, which are, and have always been, quite common, it is typical that once a misidentification has happened, and one unit has opened fire, the subsequent units simply follow suit, without even trying to identify the target. After all, they consider it already identified.

A common scenario is also that the target, once attacked, will return the fire, and indeed fire on practically anything in range, confounding the problem.

In other words, the sequence of events is quite consistent with a friendly fire accident.

In contrast, a subversive or false flag operation would rarely involve so many units, especially not both air and sea units. The risk of disclosure is simply too great.

A false flag operation would be aiming at one of two goals:

1) To eliminate the unit. In this case, a single torpedo unit (surface or U-boat) could easily move within firing range under the guise of friendship, fire a volley of torpedoes, then finish off any survivors with guns. Simple and relatively easy, and leaving no witnesses.

2) To provide a provocation, presumably to serve as an excuse for some other action. In this case, there would be no need for a massive attack; a single plane with false markings raking the ship with gunfire and then disappearing would be adequate.

In other words, the scenario fits an accidental attack.

Hans

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 07:13 AM

and why I feel it is idiotic to not see this as the case.
Stopped reading here. Have any idea why Sherlock?

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 07:18 AM

Fantastic, some opposition to disprove.

You're all obviously oblivious as to your ignorance on this matter, I'm glad the bait was seized upon. Don't be offended my friends, alls well.

Based on a general appreciation of naval history in the 20th Century, I find it utterly beyond credibility that a competent naval force could attack a lightly armed merchant ship using fighter-bombers and motor torpedo boats and yet leave that ship still afloat. Any kind of co-ordination between the two attacks, or simply equipping the fighters with some kind of anti-shipping weapon, would easily have been able to sink the USS Liberty leaving no survivors. I can understand the survivors still being angry at the deaths of their crewmates, but the conspiracy theory simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Mistakes like this are common in war.

Dave

Logic would tell you that wouldn't it? Sadly a lot of the time logic doesn't stand testament to the real world. The 3 Israeli patrol boats had two torpedoes each all of which they fired. Due to the skill of the Capitan/Israeli error he avoided 5 of these torpedoes though one managed to hit doing severe damage to the hull, the ship took on a lot of water but the damage control teams managed to do some DIY.

Additionally the Air Attack lasted for around 25minutes according to the report I have posted below. It involved 12 planes and an estimated 25 sorties. The entire time of which the American flag was raised, this is not in question. The sky was blue and we have reputable people confirmed by the NSA tapes that the Isrealies acknowledged that it was an American ship.

Also to the people claiming that it was mis-identified, have you actually read the sworn testament of the sailors of that ship? One of the most highly decorated crews of one of the most highly decorated ships of the United States Navy. It does not account for the theories put forth by the governments of the United States and of Israel. Nor has there ever been a congressional investigation into the incident despite much objection.

The quotes after are from a report by

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman, Liberty Alliance

GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (RET.)*
Former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Vice Chairman, Liberty Alliance

REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Director, Liberty Alliance

AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.)
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Director, Liberty Alliance

We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby find the following: **

That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty’s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty’s firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty’s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;

[3] New evidence of intercepted radio communications between attacking Israeli pilots and the Israeli War Room, recorded by a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane, in which the Israeli pilots report seeing the Liberty’s American flag flying, has been collected by investigative author James Bamford - for 9 years the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (and author of Body of Secrets, which includes a chapter entitled Blood about the attack on the Liberty). A similar radio message was intercepted by the EC-121 from the Israeli motor torpedo boats. This corroborates statements by surviving crewmembers, by Ambassador Dwight Porter, and by senior National Security Agency officials concerning NSA intercepts of Israeli pilot communications identifying the ship as American.

So hey if you guys want to call me names, please provide evidence to the contrary of these very reputable men.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 07:22 AM

Got in himmel. The Liberty? Again?

For all the conspiracists out there, let me repeat some basic truths: The USS Liberty was an acknowledged spy ship sitting five miles off of the coast of a war zone after the US had declared that it had no ships in the area. After several inquiries by the US Military, the US Congress, and Israel, all of them agreed it was a friendly fire incident. Israel appologized and paid millions of dollars in damages.

And all of this happened forty-one years ago.

Get over it.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 07:28 AM

It was covered up, I know most of you here have your ******** detectors turned to %120 due to the 9/11 movement but read the report by these men, you'll be surprised what happened.

That and hear/read the testimony of the crew.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 07:47 AM

Here is a report (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html) of the incident by an Israeli historian. He actually give the name of one of the Isaeli pilots invloved, which had talked about the incident recently.

The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull.
IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty's schedule - a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack.
The first salvos caught the Liberty's crew in "stand-down" mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle. Radio operators on board found most of their frequencies inoperable and barely managed to send an SOS to the Sixth Fleet. The Mirages made three strafing runs and were then joined by two additional aircraft, Israeli Super-Mysteres returning from the Mitla Pass with a payload of napalm. After fourteen minutes of action, the pilots reported having made good hits - over eight hundred holes would later be counted in the hull. The entire superstructure of the ship, from the main deck to the bridge, was aflame.
Throughout these sorties, no one aboard the Liberty suspected that the planes were Israeli. Indeed, rumors spread that the attackers were Egyptian MiGs. After the first strike, the visibility that had enabled crewmen to identify IAF reconnaissance craft earlier in the day was lost to the smoke of battle. One of the Israeli pilots, curious as to why the vessel had not returned fire, made a final pass at ninety feet. "I see no flag," he told headquarters. "But there are markings on the hull - Charlie-Tango-Romeo-five."25
While Egyptian naval ships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. The fact that the ship had Western markings led Rabin to fear that it was Soviet, and he immediately called off the jets. Two IAF Hornet helicopters were sent to look for survivors - Spector had reported seeing men overboard - while the torpedo boat squadron was ordered to hold its fire pending further attempts at identification. Though that order was recorded in the torpedo boat's log, Oren claimed he never received it.26 It was now 2:20 in the afternoon; twenty-four minutes would pass before the squadron made contact with the Liberty.

As you can see, everyone agrees that the Israeli planes hit the Liberty many times. This claim is not under contention and does not help one determine whether this was a friendly fire incident, or an intentional attack. The report seems to contradict the claims that there were 12 planes involved (mentions 4 planes).

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 08:18 AM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 08:35 AM

The most telling fact here, and it was barely mentioned, is that the Israeli boats were machine gunning Liberty lifeboats at a range of 50-75 yards.

Do you know how large the letters are on the bow of an American ship.

The name can be seen with the naked eye easily several hundred yards away. I have identified many ships entering port at Norfolk in this way. And i err on the side of caution.

Anybody who thinks the boats directly standing by the ship, could not be identified by merely reading the name of the ship , is insane.

Then of course we have air assets on the way to rescue the ship being intentionally turned back by LBJ.

The fact the Israeli's were aware of incoming help is why they left. They in no way intended to leave any survivors or the ship still afloat.

Of course we also have Admiral Mc Cain refusing to allow anybody from the court of inquiry to go to Israel to question anybody. That is criminal.

US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.' So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 08:37 AM

Doctor Evil, there are only two sides to this story.

It's either the Israelis where right up next to the vessel shooting firefighters and stretcher bearers or that it was a mistake.

The 10 American reports and the 4 Israeli reports all commissioned by the government all say it was a friendly fire accident.

The only independent investigation(blue-ribbon) by the men I've listed say all of those reports are wrong.

Look, its clear that this investigation was form since the people involved disagreed with the result of the previous 14 investigations. You can call it independent as it had nothing to do with the government, but it would take some motivation to re-investigate this incident again. In any case, the identity of the people in the commission, or their motivation is to the issue here. The evidence is the issue here.

You qoute:

[3] New evidence of intercepted radio communications between attacking Israeli pilots and the Israeli War Room, recorded by a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane, in which the Israeli pilots report seeing the Liberty’s American flag flying, has been collected by investigative author James Bamford - for 9 years the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (and author of Body of Secrets, which includes a chapter entitled Blood about the attack on the Liberty). A similar radio message was intercepted by the EC-121 from the Israeli motor torpedo boats. This corroborates statements by surviving crewmembers, by Ambassador Dwight Porter, and by senior National Security Agency officials concerning NSA intercepts of Israeli pilot communications identifying the ship as American.

The only transcripts I was able to find, which were declassified in 2003, are not those. In fact, they point in the other direction. Your quote implies that other transcript exist and are known, Can you find a link to these? (Mind, not a link to someone who heard about them. A link to the transcripts.) The transcript I have cited clearly show that the control tower directing the helicopters considered the ship to be Egyptian. This is primary evidence, which was recorded at that time.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 08:39 AM

The most telling fact here, and it was barely mentioned, is that the Israeli boats were machine gunning Liberty lifeboats at a range of 50-75 yards.

It's hardly a "fact." Not even the survivors of the Liberty agree that this happened. And it was forty-one years ago.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 08:43 AM

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 08:43 AM

Someone tell me that bringing up anti-Israel baloney 41 years after the fact isn't rooted FIRMLY in anti-semitism and in my opinion isn't far removed from holocaust denial. The OP is on ignore...

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 08:49 AM

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

Since Israel never denied that it had attacked the ship, and in fact, paid compensations, this bears no light on the nature of the incident. At best this is a complaint about the way the US navy dealt with its casualties and survivors. Was that the purpose of this post?

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 08:53 AM

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

Considering the fact that the it was an intelligence ship on a secret intelligence mission, how strange is it that the crew members' graves don't give more detail? Are the details of intelligence missions usually spelled out on gravestones?

Also, considering the fact that Israel admitted to attacking the Liberty and paid millions of dollars in damages, why are the gravestones evidence of anything? There can't passibly have been a cover-up as to their cause of death because Israel admitted it.

~enigma~

3rd July 2008, 08:54 AM

Was that the purpose of this post?
To convince the naive and weak brained that Israel is evil because they are run by a zionist government so it is justified to hate, persecute and I personally wouldn't be surprised if this Aryan ******* said kill jews.

Donal

3rd July 2008, 08:57 AM

The 10 American reports and the 4 Israeli reports all commissioned by the government all say it was a friendly fire accident.

The only independent investigation(blue-ribbon) by the men I've listed say all of those reports are wrong.

So why is the one that opposes the others the right one?

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 08:57 AM

This feature article, from 2007 in the Chicago Tribune very ably sums up the event.

Read it carefully and note the corraborating witnesses who state Israel was well aware of what and whom they were attacking.
And contrary to a previous posters assertions, she was 13 miles out at sea when the attack began, in international waters.

New revelations in attack on American spy ship
Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident

By John Crewdson | Tribune senior correspondent
October 2, 2007
Breach of rule 4 removed.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 09:00 AM

Your 'Blue Ribbon Panel' was self-selected, which invalidates any objectivity they might have had. In addition, Adm. Moorer has always been anti-Isreali, and quite frankly a bit of a rabid anti-communist.

Furthermore, the man is a political nutbar. He 'predicted' a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal would take place immediately after we turned the canal over to the government of Panama, and bitterly criticized Bill Clinton for upholding a treaty! Moorer has also fallen for TWA800 conspiracy theories and a load of other nonsense. His claims about the Liberty are nothing more than opinion, not backed with evidence.

However, under his watch as CNO, Moorer approved one of the US Court Navy findings! Such hypocrisy! He would have had to been part of the coverup he so codemned! Not much a patriot if he won't stick his neck out when his political career was on the line!

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 09:05 AM

How the Israeli attack unfolded Graphic "They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

----------

Yeah, right. Tell that to the HMS Shefflield, or Iran Flight 655.

Donal

3rd July 2008, 09:06 AM

Do you know how large the letters are on the bow of an American ship.

The name can be seen with the naked eye easily several hundred yards away. I have identified many ships entering port at Norfolk in this way. And i err on the side of caution.

Anybody who thinks the boats directly standing by the ship, could not be identified by merely reading the name of the ship , is insane.

How many of those boats were you engaged in a fire fight with?

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 09:36 AM

Yeah, right. Tell that to the HMS Shefflield, or Iran Flight 655.

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

People bring up Moorer's background, but that hardly affect the corraborated testimony of a number of military people(who didnt know each other)who heard the exact same reports and came to the exact same conclusions.

Any defender of Israel in this incident is beyond help. As i said, creafully read the article. Do you feel she wasnt flying the flag and all the corraborated reports of pilots asking for confirmation to attack arent ably supported is loony, and anti American .

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 09:46 AM

You're all obviously oblivious as to your ignorance on this matter, I'm glad the bait was seized upon. Don't be offended my friends, alls well.

I'm not your friend, and if you're going to continue to be this patronising the situation is unlikely to change.

Logic would tell you that wouldn't it? Sadly a lot of the time logic doesn't stand testament to the real world. The 3 Israeli patrol boats had two torpedoes each all of which they fired. Due to the skill of the Capitan/Israeli error he avoided 5 of these torpedoes though one managed to hit doing severe damage to the hull, the ship took on a lot of water but the damage control teams managed to do some DIY.

Additionally the Air Attack lasted for around 25minutes according to the report I have posted below. It involved 12 planes and an estimated 25 sorties. The entire time of which the American flag was raised, this is not in question. The sky was blue and we have reputable people confirmed by the NSA tapes that the Isrealies acknowledged that it was an American ship.

Also to the people claiming that it was mis-identified, have you actually read the sworn testament of the sailors of that ship? One of the most highly decorated crews of one of the most highly decorated ships of the United States Navy. It does not account for the theories put forth by the governments of the United States and of Israel. Nor has there ever been a congressional investigation into the incident despite much objection.

Taking these in reverse order:

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to dispute the identification of the ship based on the testimony of the crew? They are the last people in a position to understand what the pilots did and did not see. And what possible relevance do their decorations have to the argument? Should the pilots have been dazzled by the medal ribbons? Misidentification is common in warfare, even in apparently ideal conditions. When your life depends on being certain that the target isn't hostile if you don't attack, it's easy to err on the side of survival.

Your suggestion that the air attack involved 12 planes and 25 sorties indicates either a lack of understanding of military jargon or a willingness to believe the impossible. By "sorties", do you really mean complete missions from takeoff to landing, or do you mean strafing runs? If the former, your position is absurd. If the latter, then it's completely inconsistent with the idea of a sneak attack to sink the ship without anyone knowing; 25 strafing runs without a kill makes is quite clear that the planes weren't equipped for anti-shipping operations. A squadron of Beaufighters in 1944 would have been ashamed of a result like that; they wouldn't have needed more than a single pass each with cannon and rockets to sink a ship the size and construction of the Liberty.

As for the torpedo boats, if the idea was to sink the Liberty, why did they wait till after the air attack when there was no possibility of surprise? The only chance the Liberty could have had was to avoid the torpedoes, and surprise would have made that very much harder. And why do you persist in refusing to admit that the PT boats only attacked after the Liberty had fired on them, as the crew of the Liberty admit?

Finally, you've carefully sidestepped the point that two separate, unco-ordinated attacks are far less likely to succeed than a single simultaneous attack from sea and air. As usual with conspiracy theorists, you require your conspirators to be simultaneously fiendishly clever and laughably incompetent.

Dave

Big Les

3rd July 2008, 09:49 AM

This has been done to death here already.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117496&goto=newpost
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-9531.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=12199
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71596
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76069

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 09:55 AM

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 09:58 AM

Little different situation dont you think regarding the Sheffield. Weather, etc.

Different situation? Sure! The pliots were flying much slower Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers, rather than high speed jet planes, and they were much, much, much more familiar with the Sheffield than the Isreali pilots were with the Liberty.

Weather? It was good enough to fly biplanes in. Good enough to find targets.

As for Iran Air 665, how much better weather do you want?

These Torpedo boats machine gunned guys at CLOSE range.

No. They did not. The torpedo boats didn't get closer than 2000 yards. They launched torpedoes when fired upon (probably by accident).

Read the Liberty's logs:

http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Logs1-24.pdf

People bring up Moorer's background, but that hardly affect the corraborated testimony of a number of military people(who didnt know each other)who heard the exact same reports and came to the exact same conclusions.

And even more realise that this was a tragic accident. It is funny how the nutjobs seem to rise to the top of the cream in the 'they dun it on purpose' crowd, eh?

Any defender of Israel in this incident is beyond help. As i said, creafully read the article. Do you feel she wasnt flying the flag and all the corraborated reports of pilots asking for confirmation to attack arent ably supported is loony, and anti American .

She was flying the flag. Just as the HMS Shefflield was flying the Union Jack.

I don't bother with biased, assumptive articles, I work with source material when possible. Liberty has tons of source material:

http://www.libertyincident.com/documents.html

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 10:03 AM

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

The Torpedo boats, by all the logs and evidence, never got closer than 2000 yards. They attempted to signal, but smoke obscured the Liberty signal. The Liberty fired at the Torpedo boats and they in turn launched torpedoes.

I don't consider 2000 yards to be close range in small boat tactics.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 10:09 AM

The PT boats believed the Liberty was American when they closed to offer assistance. When the Liberty started shooting at them, who knows what they thought? They fired back.

Dave

The fired a friggin torpedo, in fact a few of them. Remember the ship had alreday been attacked an napalmed when the PT boats showed up. The hull number on the bow would be visible from quite a ways off, certainly from machine gun range. The "5" on the bow is clearly as big as the anchor.

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

Dave Rogers

3rd July 2008, 10:21 AM

The fired a friggin torpedo, in fact a few of them. Remember the ship had alreday been attacked an napalmed when the PT boats showed up. The hull number on the bow would be visible from quite a ways off, certainly from machine gun range. The "5" on the bow is clearly as big as the anchor.

And the Egyptians would never think to paint a number 5 on the bow of one of their ships, because they don't use Arabic numbers. Hang on...

But who cares? The PT boats were fighting a war. When someone shoots at you, and you're not certain they're on your side, you fire back until they stop, with whatever you've got.

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

So the guys back at control screwed up. That's pretty much the story Israel admitted to and paid compensation for, isn't it?

Dave

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 11:22 AM

Its an ancillary point. There is irrefutable proof that the planes knew exactly who she was, and in fact asked for direction after verifing that fcat

Wrong. The helicoptor pilots may have done that, but not the pilots of the planes.

Present this 'irrefutable proof', if you don't mind.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 12:14 PM

Wrong. The helicoptor pilots may have done that, but not the pilots of the planes.

Present this 'irrefutable proof', if you don't mind.

Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

Either every one of them are lying, or they're statements provide corroborated proof that the pilots were aware she was American, and asked for confirmation to attack because of that, and were given that authority by Israeli ATC.

I would say the exact same conclusion reached by people who had never met each other is extremely convincing.

corroborate

The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English | Date: 2008
corroborate
• verb
synonyms: confirm, verify, bear out, authenticate, validate, certify, endorse, ratify, substantiate, back up, uphold, support, attest to, sustain, evidence

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 12:50 PM

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

Well, first of all, this isn't true.

Second of all, why would the US ambassador to Quatar be listening in real time to intercepted Israeli communications during an attack on the Liberty? And when did he learn Hebrew?

ETA: Oh. I found your source material. Kilgore never once claimed to have heard any intercepts either live or after the fact. He did mention that Porter once discussed with him that Porter had seen translations of transcripts. And that's only if you believe the article. so, to summarize, a journalist says that Kilgore said that Porter said that he had briefly seen an english-language translation of a transcript made long after the actual attack.

Here's the article (http://www.buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/uss-liberty-new-revelations-in-attack-on-american-spy-ship/), based mostly on hearsay upon hearsay and no actual documents.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 01:06 PM

Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#10845124701382208 5

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 01:13 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 01:19 PM

This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#10845124701382208 5

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.

This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.

The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.

You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.

Loss Leader

3rd July 2008, 01:33 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 02:12 PM

Do you have any response to the fact that at least two of the people on your list (Porter and Kilgore) never claimed to have heard any intercepts at all, let alone in real time? Do you have any response to the fact that you were wrong on that issue?

I cede not in real time, but not that they werent aware of what the intercepts said.As US ambassadors, why wouldnt they be credible, and in the loop.

The others i listed were, and there is zero reason to deem them not credible.

Go read what those two said, they support what i said. The others did hear in real time, and i find it credible and corroborated.

Google chicago paper uss liberty.

Re opening and having a CREDIBLE investigation would tear this wide open, and any sane person is well aware of this.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 02:29 PM

The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.

The first names wouldn't be very interesting. At least two did not hear any 'real-time'. The rest have no documentation to support them and don't really add much but their own interpetation.

Its also possible that these folks heard the helicoptor pilots after the attacks. Or they heard the IAF pilots who flew by them in the morning and did identify them properly.

As Dr. Evil points out, they weren't the only ones listening. How do you account for the documentation Nowicki has?

You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Not true. Name me one survivor who is documented as facing any charges or prison time for speaking.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.

There has been more than one hearing.
There have been 10 in the US alone. These folks were being heard, from the start in press interviews right after the incident.

But it still doesn't add up to any real evidence, let alone anything 'irrefutable'.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 02:34 PM

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 02:41 PM

You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???

Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."

Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 02:53 PM

You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???

Might be an issue if there hadn't been 9 more inquiries!

Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."

Directly contradicted by the Captain, several other members of the crew as well as the Ship's Logs.

Ennes make a lot of claims, including that he was officer of the deck. At this stage I could not take his testimony seriously.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 02:57 PM

Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"

So when the National Review stated, in their 9/5/67 issue that:

During the past month, press service interviews with survivors of the attack (emphasis added) have turned up a uniform conviction that the attack was deliberate. Sailors point to the morning-long aerial surveillance; the presence of the flag; the known configuration of the Liberty; her name in English on the stern; her slow progression in international waters. All of these factors support the crew's conclusion that the assault was no accident.

They were just making it up?

I think someone is making things up, and its not the National Review.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 03:08 PM

The US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 was called Dr. Marvin Nowicki. He was one of the Hebrew speaking crew. He believes that the attack was accidental. You can find some information here (http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki.html).

I Read his statement. The guy i cited above was actually listening, and heatedly telling others what was going on and to listen as well. Nowicki only listened after some time, and hadnt been listening to the intercepts at all, until told to.

He did however say this, and i quote him

"Despite replaying portions of the tapes, we still did not have a complete understanding of what transpired except for the likelihood that a ship flying the American flag was being attacked by Israeli air and surface forces."

This is YOUR witness who said this.

Also, it should be noted, others on there said tapes they made came up missing where the US flag was mentioned in regards these intercepts, and couldnt be found.

YOUR witness seems here to confirm they in fact were made.

All in all, the weight of the case made by guys on that plane backs my contention, and the only guy you cite confirms what the others said to a degree. Not to mention the USAF INTERCEPT PERSONEL WHO WERE LISTENING TO THE SAME THING.

If, as Israel claims, and did so repeatedly, that the ship wasnt flying a flag, or it wasnt seen, YOUR witness sure seems to confirm it was in fact discussed. Had it been an Egyptian Ship as Israel said, there would be zero reason for the Amnerican flag to have been mentioned whatsoever by any Israeli that was attacking.

Your owned.................

Doctor Evil

3rd July 2008, 03:17 PM

Letter from Marvin E. Nowicki, Ph.D., published in The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 16, 2001, page A-23:
Tragic "Gross Error" In a 1967 Attack
In regard to Timothy Naftali's review of James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" (Leisure & Arts, May 9): Mr. Naftali doesn't quite have it right concerning the book portion dealing with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I know because I am the person to whom Mr. Natfali [sic] refers as the "chief Hebrew-language analyst" aboard the U.S. Navy (not Air Force) EC121 aircraft. He says that I recall one of my teammates telling me of hearing references to "a U.S. flag" from Israeli pilots.
For the record, we (my teammate and I) both heard and recorded the references to the U.S. flag made by the pilots and captains of the motor torpedo boats. My personal recollection remains after 34 years that the aircraft and MTBs prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag.
My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is that the attack, though terrible and tragic especially to the crew members and their families on that ill-fated day in June 1967, was a gross error. How can I prove it? I can't unless the transcripts/tapes are found and released to the public. I last saw them in a desk drawer at NSA in the late 1970s before I left the service.
MARVIN E. NOWICKI, PH.D.
Ashley, Ill.

No comment needed.

van_dutch

3rd July 2008, 03:43 PM

van_dutch

3rd July 2008, 03:47 PM

I suggest you read over http://www.thelibertyincident.com/ there is a lot of great information there about this situation.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 04:04 PM

Israel owned up to this. They admitted they messed up. The helicopter pilots thought they were rescuing Egyptians. This is shown in the translation of the intercepted communications (see page 3 and pages 6 of the first transcript here: http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/recordings.cfm). Israel even paid $13 million, I believe to the US government and the sailors and families because they messed up. It was a war. War is stressful. The Israeli military is filled with people. People are known to make mistakes. More stress means more mistakes. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens.

Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 04:18 PM

Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

So in other words, nothing

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

Which as we have already established, means little for identification.

The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

This is getting ludicrous. Even the most poorly trained pilots have to know that a missiles, bullets, and napalm are not the tools for sinking ships. This makes me think this guy is telling tales.

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

So 'everbody saw these' but only two other folks can say they saw them or heard them?

Doubtful.

gumboot

3rd July 2008, 04:20 PM

For all the conspiracists out there, let me repeat some basic truths: The USS Liberty was an acknowledged spy ship sitting five miles off of the coast of a war zone after the US had declared that it had no ships in the area.

This is worth pointing out because too often it is overlooked. There's pretty good evidence the USS Liberty breached the coastal buffer zone that Israel had said they would defend during the war.

Simply put the US stuck its nose into a conflict it had no business being nosey about, and got a smack for it.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 04:52 PM

We talk of the USS Liberty incident and get accused of Hating on Jews?

Very ****ing weak.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 05:15 PM

Yeah, things are tough all over.

In reading this thread (heaven help me), what leaps out is people saying, over and over again, that Israel owned up, paid compensation, so on so forth. But Roundhead (when will the Cavaliers show up, I wonder) and Cpl Fantastic seem unable to accept that. They claim, I think, that there has to be something more. What is that more that they want? That's my question.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 05:17 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 05:22 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

OK, that's your position. But again, as I ask in post 61, what is the "more" you are looking for? Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation. You seem to want more than that. What is the "more"?

I'd ask Roundhead the same.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 05:31 PM

Well it has been covered up as an friendly fire incident where the crew's testimony completely contradicts this.

It is obvious it has been covered up upon looking at the 14 reports (not that I've read them all) as they all claim the opposite to the crew's testimony. They where told in very harsh words not to talk about it and most of the crew didn't say anything for 20 + years.

We're not even really debating what happened, we're debating pre-held conceptions as to what can and cannot happen. Obviously this cannot happen under the preconceptions of many therefore the crew are wrong.

So unless the crew are Jew Haters and Holocaust deniers I've no reason to contradict their testimony.

Given Israel did intentionally attack the vessel it raises many questions as to why. This is much harder to figure out than whether or not the ship was intentionally attacked.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 05:37 PM

My impression is that, in fact, there is not complete agreement among the survivors. (If there were complete agreement, I'd be suspicious.) But that's beside the point.

OK, what's your remedy? More compensation from Israel? Medals from the US for those killed and injured (or for everyone; I don't know how these things are handled, typically)? An armed strike against Tel Aviv as retribution?

I still don't know what your point is, or what your proposed remedy is. A public trial of the Israeli individuals who were immediately involved? The commanders involved? It's too late for the government leaders, who probably all have died in the interim. That generation of Israeli politicians is gone, except Peres I suppose.

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

ETA: I await. Roundhead, you may answer as well. I've heard this argument a number of times and never understood what was expected.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 06:05 PM

OK, what's your remedy? More compensation from Israel? Medals from the US for those killed and injured (or for everyone; I don't know how these things are handled, typically)? An armed strike against Tel Aviv as retribution?

I still don't know what your point is, or what your proposed remedy is. A public trial of the Israeli individuals who were immediately involved? The commanders involved? It's too late for the government leaders, who probably all have died in the interim. That generation of Israeli politicians is gone, except Peres I suppose.

Sorry didn't understand what you were getting at exactly, a very good question indeed.

First a better understanding of the events must first happen, the independent investigation was a good start but as we see a lot of people still won't accept what happened. Not that I see this happening for given the commissions reports are fact no-one in the United States Government or the Israeli Government would want to see it.

And before anything else happens the motives must first be understood, I'm not asking for Israel to be dragged across hot coals. I don't know why the attack happened so making recommendations is pointless.

twinstead

3rd July 2008, 06:13 PM

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

Ah yes. Good times.

SDC

3rd July 2008, 06:14 PM

Well, you are convinced, mostly I think by the survivors' accounts, that it must have been deliberate. (The other sources brought in by roundhead seem weak.) Well, it was certainly deliberate in the sense that some people actually did something. If they knew it was an American ship, which I think you believe, then you need to consider motive. And you have to ask how high up the chain of command the decision went. Motive could be as simple as giving a bloody nose to a foreign ship in wartime. (Remember, Israel was much less dependent on US support in 1967.) It would be hard to figure any other special motive -- if the idea was to slaughter the whole crew so that the Egyptians might somehow be blamed, then they did a damned poor job of it.

As for the chain of command, I know nothing about how such things work and couldn't give anything like a halfway sensible opinion.

The only thing I do believe which is relevant is that war is a goddamned untidy mess. As Napoleon (?) said, no plan survives the first encounter.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 06:28 PM

I've put my faith in the crew for this one, by their own words they've been lied to, told to shut up and pushed under the carpet.

I have not put that much faith in the crew's statements, especially the embellished accounts by the more 'hotheaded' crew members, such as Ennes, who is clearly embellishing, and has added to his tale as the years go by.

As was mentioned earlier, nothing has kept the crews quiet. Some were talking about it being deliberate from the start.

But their basis is weak. They are sailors and they assume by flying the US flag and having some numbers on the side makes them as identifiable to anyone. That simply is not true and I think several of my posts in this thread make that clear.

The independent investigation is, in my very informed opinion, a sham. It was a self-selected group making up a kangaroo court that was led by an Admiral who has an open and virulent anti-Isreali agenda, as well as several other crackpot opinions as well.

Worse, he's a hypocrite of the FIRST ORDER! He was CNO during the naval investigation yet he signed off on the reports from the Naval investigation that stated without any doubt that the attack was an accident! This Admiral has so little integrity that he wouldn't stick out his neck to get to the bottom of the matter? Spare me.

Five congressional investigations have been made concerning the Liberty under five very different congresses. All five have come to the same conclusion: It was an accident. All the documents indicate it, sworn testimony during investigations indicate it.

Its over, the Liberty Incident was an accident. All the added tales and misunderstandings won't change that.

Cpt.Fantastic

3rd July 2008, 08:04 PM

Five congressional investigations have been made concerning the Liberty under five very different congresses. All five have come to the same conclusion: It was an accident. All the documents indicate it, sworn testimony during investigations indicate it.

I was under the impression this was a lie, can you provide evidence please? I'm interested.

kookbreaker

3rd July 2008, 08:18 PM

I was under the impression this was a lie, can you provide evidence please? I'm interested.

Sure:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Its a lot to go through. But the bottom line is that the CT crowd cannot produce any documents supporting their claims in any ironclad fashion.

Big Les

4th July 2008, 03:46 AM

Do people remember ... There was a fellow obsessed with the possible image of the Liberty's mast in some photos and what it did or did not mean. Boy, there was a character.

I do indeed - two of the links I posted further up are David Carmichael threads.

Cuddles

4th July 2008, 08:57 AM

Nowicki only listened after some time, and hadnt been listening to the intercepts at all, until told to.

So let me get this straight, you provide a list of people who either freely admit to not listening to any intercepts, claim to have listened but can't prove it or claim to have listened to something that doesn't exist, and you are now complaining that someone who contradicts you isn't any good because he only listened to intercepts after being told to. That's, well, a little inconsistent don't you think?

Loss Leader

4th July 2008, 10:45 AM

I cede not in real time, but not that they werent aware of what the intercepts said.As US ambassadors, why wouldnt they be credible, and in the loop.

Let me just ask: do you have any idea how silly that sounds?

The Chicago Tribune article that you yourself cited didn't say anything that you are now claiming. All that it said about Andrew Kilgore was that, after Dwight Porter had died, Kilgore said that he remembered that Porter once told him that Porter had once seen english translations of transcripts. That is all that the article says about Kilgore. Every single thing that Kilgore claimed to know about the Liberty came from Porter. That's not my opinion - that's what Kilgore himself said.

It is impossible for Kilgore to know more about the Liberty incident than Porter. It is impossible to say that he should know because he was "in the loop." Kilgore admitted that he didn't know anything that Porter told him. So, Kilgore can only ever be as credible as Porter.

And Kilgore might be far less credible. The reporter might be lying about Kilgore's comments; the reporter might be mistaken about Kilgore's comments; the reporter might not remember Kilgore's exact comments; Kilgore may have been lying about hearing anything from Porter; Kilgore's memory might be wrong about Porter; Kilgore may have misunderstood Porter; Porter may have been lying to Kilgore; Porter's memory might have been wrong; Porter might have misunderstood what he saw; etc.

And nobody can ask Porter because Porter was dead before Kilgore spoke about it.

Kilgore's testimony is nothing but hearsay.

He was not "in the loop." He doesn't claim to have been "in the loop." Your statement that he is a credible source is just plain silly.

quicknthedead

4th July 2008, 02:06 PM

OK, that's your position. But again, as I ask in post 61, what is the "more" you are looking for? Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation. You seem to want more than that. What is the "more"?

I'd ask Roundhead the same.

Yes, Israel owned up to the attack and paid compensation, but in doing so declared it simply a terrible accident and a mistake. However, if the attacks were done with Israeli prior knowledge of the ship being American, this changes everything. If this were true, your question of "what is the "more" you are looking for?" could be narrowed to:
Why was this attack deliberately made?

More from the Oct 2, 2007 Chicago Tribune story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=6&coll=chi_business_ugc

Oliver Kirby, the NSA's deputy director for operations at the time of the Liberty attack, confirmed the existence of NSA transcripts.

Asked whether he had personally read such transcripts, Kirby replied, "I sure did. I certainly did."

"They said, 'We've got him in the zero,'" Kirby recalled, "whatever that meant -- I guess the sights or something. And then one of them said, 'Can you see the flag?' They said 'Yes, it's U.S, it's U.S.' They said it several times, so there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that they knew it."

Kirby, now 86 and retired in Texas, said the transcripts were "something that's bothered me all my life. I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew."

and also...

One set of transcripts apparently survived in the archives of the U.S. Army's intelligence school, then located at Ft. Holabird in Maryland.

W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel who spent eight years as chief of Middle East intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the transcripts were used as "course material" in an advanced class for intelligence officers on the clandestine interception of voice transmissions.

"The flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the U.S. flag," Lang recalled in an e-mail.

"The flight commander was reluctant," Lang said in a subsequent interview. "That was very clear. He didn't want to do this. He asked them a couple of times, 'Do you really want me to do this?' I've remembered it ever since. It was very striking. I've been harboring this memory for all these years."

This is why there is a demand for a Liberty investigation. Some who suffer or lose loved ones will relentlessly seek the truth and justice. Israel should want to put this matter to rest once and for all.

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

SDC

4th July 2008, 02:50 PM

So, Roundhead (any Cavaliers out there, too?) your point, your "more" is that you want another investigation which, presumably, will reveal the truth. Let's say it does. Then what? I asked Cpl Fantastic this: more compensation from Israel? a trial of the pilots or others? An armed strike on Tel Aviv in revenge? What?

If it was a deliberate attack -- of course, any action is "deliberate" in a sense -- the next questions become motive, and I refer to what I said earlier, that none seems forthcoming; and matters of chain of command, i.e. who makes the decision vs who carries them out, and I have nothing useful to say about them because I know nothing about how they work.

Loss Leader

4th July 2008, 06:13 PM

Why was this attack deliberately made?

Well, here's what we know: Liberty was a spy ship. It was sitting just off the coast of two countries who were at war. The US had denied that it had any ships in the area. Immediately after the attack, Israel admitted it.

So what is the absolute worst reason that Israel could have attacked? What is the most terrible, nefarious reason you can think of?

It couldn't have been a false-flag operation to make the US think that Egypt had attacked. Israel admitted it right away.

Let's say the following: Israel believed that the US did not fully support it in the war and, in fact, that the US was giving intelligence about its troop movements to the Egyptians. Egypt, after all, had nothing like the signals intelligence of the US or even of Israel. Its air force was almost non-existent by the time of the Liberty incident. It was basically blind to Israeli movements. And at the same time, the US did not favor Israeli expansion into the Sinai. And the US offered zero military support of the Israeli war effort.

So, let's agree that forty-one years ago, Israel purposefully attacked the Liberty with the intention of destroying it because they thought it was a threat to their war effort.

SO WHAT?

What should happen TODAY because of that?

If Israel admitted everything that I wrote above, what should happen?

What is the point of a new investigation, of knowing the "truth" or of anything else you want? What should happen as a result of your new investigation?

My guess is that you have no answer. Still, I wait to hear from any of the people who have been arguing in favor of a new investigation.

SDC

4th July 2008, 06:37 PM

Reminds me of the calls for a new investigation into 9/11. Go ahead, good luck, don't think of using my taxpayer dollars. If your arguments are valid and your evidence good, you will win. Meanwhile, I'm not betting on that.

defaultdotxbe

4th July 2008, 07:45 PM

So, Roundhead (any Cavaliers out there, too?) your point, your "more" is that you want another investigation which, presumably, will reveal the truth. Let's say it does. Then what?

and what if it doesnt? then do we call for a 12th inquiry? and a 13th? and a 14th until something agrees with the CTs

but what if it only finds israelis acted with the intentions of bringing the US into the war, do we need a 15th, 16th and 17th inquiry until we find pres johnson was involved too?

then more to find it was the illuminati, or the reptilians? every single investigation will be a whitewash to some nutjob

fuelair

5th July 2008, 12:14 AM

To convince the naive and weak brained that Israel is evil because they are run by a zionist government so it is justified to hate, persecute and I personally wouldn't be surprised if this Aryan ******* said kill jews.You assume much here. I suggest you pop to a few of my posts on Israel and Israelis before making that assumption - because I was around when it happened and heard about it at the time and have seen/heard/read about it very much over the 41 years since it happened - and I am 90%* certain that it was known (that it was a US ship) to the Israelis at the time of the attacks- but I am in no way anti-Semitic and loathe those who are. I don't know the two guys who are agreeing on this - and I have no idea why now - but that they bring it up does not make them anti-semitic to me. They will have to go beyond this for that to happen.

*Two years ago I was 100% certain.

Travis

5th July 2008, 03:44 AM

SDC

5th July 2008, 04:59 AM

You assume much here. I suggest you pop to a few of my posts on Israel and Israelis before making that assumption - because I was around when it happened and heard about it at the time and have seen/heard/read about it very much over the 41 years since it happened - and I am 90%* certain that it was known (that it was a US ship) to the Israelis at the time of the attacks- but I am in no way anti-Semitic and loathe those who are. I don't know the two guys who are agreeing on this - and I have no idea why now - but that they bring it up does not make them anti-semitic to me. They will have to go beyond this for that to happen.

*Two years ago I was 100% certain.

My bolding. Then the question becomes: known to which Israelis? The prime minister? the military high command? some local unit commander(s)? I don't know how, particularly, this kind of stuff works in war time, and wouldn't know where to begin. There is a tendency to assume a kind of unitary mind -- we all talk this way, the "Israelis knew", the "Americans knew", the "Yankees have given up for the year" -- but when we stop and think we realize it isn't true.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 06:24 AM

Here are some of my more speculative thoughts regarding this subject.

The most important piece of evidence are the communication transcripts. For many years there were rumours that such transcripts exist. Finally, in 2003 the NSA released three such transcripts which cover communications between two Israeli Helicopters and the control tower. These Helicopters were sent to check on the ship shortly after the attacks. (A side note, these were released after a lawsuit by Crystol, who is a federal Judge, and did his Ph.D. on this topic. His conclusion is that a serious of mistakes caused the attack.)

I have linked to the transcripts previously. From reading them it is clear that the control tower considered the ship to be Egyptian at first. Only later they start asking the pilots to find out the nationality of the ship's crew. I assume this is due to information they receive from the Israeli navy. (That is further reports from the torpedo boats.) There are several mentions of the US in these transcripts, including for the US flag.

After the release of these transcripts, there were claims that further transcripts exist. You can find them in several earlier posts in this thread. This leaves two options (please, no remarks about false dichotomy):

1. Other transcripts exist, but are covered up. The attack was deliberate.
2. There are no other transcripts. However, the existing transcripts were misinterpreted by several people. The Israelis misidentified the ship.

I support option 2. I think about this in the following way. Imagine you read a part of these transcripts but no one makes it clear to you that it refers to the Helicopters. You may naturally assume the transcripts involve the pilots which attacked the ship. Then, due to several mentions of the US, or US flag, you conclude that the attack was deliberate. Now, you are asked about these 30-40 years later, and naturally some of the details are changed by memory.

One of the points that lends support for my speculation is that the people who were more directly involved in recording these transcripts tend to be of the opinion that the attack was not deliberate. One is Marvin Nowicki (http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.html), mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman (http://libertyincident.com/hebrewlinguist3.html), which translated the transcripts.

All this is somewhat speculative. However, we have one piece of evidence which is not speculative, namely the transcripts of communications mentioned earlier, between the Helicopters and their control tower, taken after the attack. They are direct and clear evidence that the control tower (initially) did not know that this was a US ship.

Based on that my conclusion is that the attack was not deliberate, but rather due to misidentification. You may want to ask me what type of evidence would change my mind. This is a fair question, and I will therefore answer it in advance. I would need a contradicting piece of direct evidence. For instance one of the transcripts which are claimed to be missing. Alternatively, I would need some proof that the transcripts we have were faked.

I have taken time to explain my reasoning and conclusion regarding this incident because I do not expect any further information, relevant to my line of reasoning, to appear here. As a result I expect this to be my last post in this thread.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 08:22 AM

If you're going to deliberately attack a naval vessel why use planes outfitted with ground attack weapons and then fly them with reservist pilots? Why not finish the attack with sinking the ship? Why leave it afloat with survivors? And....why, if it was deliberate, admit it was you that attacked as soon as it's all over?

They were aware of the carriers in the Med, and were aware a call had been sent for help.It makes sense they wouldnt hang around with fighters inbound.

They couldnt have been aware that LBJ would turn them around. Per the intercepts, the ATC's indeed wanted her sunk.

You must have missed the point that torpedo equipped boats did put a torpedo in her, and missed with several other attempts.

Regarding reservists, it might be because others were fighting in a war?????

roundhead

5th July 2008, 08:37 AM

I guess what i want out of this is OUR govt to admit it was an attack on purpose, and an apology to the crew from our Govt for playing politics, and turning our back on them when carrier born assets of ours might have come to the rescue and saved some lives.

In short, i want our govt to apologize to those guys who were doing they're duty and were basically spat on for it.
And be more concerned with trating OUR own people properly , than kissing anybodies behind.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 09:00 AM

whoever it is posting the WRONG info about her location, cease. She was in international waters, thirteen miles out, not 5.
The Washington post even reports this just this year. Here is a quote:

Capt. Boston was assigned as a legal adviser to a military board of inquiry investigating the attack on the Liberty, an electronic-intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty in the midst

Bobby Ray Inman, Admiral, USN, Director National Security Agency
1977-1981. Inman said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol thesis
that the attack was an accident. "It is just exceedingly
difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly
identified" based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time
having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA
official could be found who dissented from the "deliberate"
conclusion. (Proceedings, June, 2003

Our Liberty Alliance, on 27 July 2005, sent a detailed letter to the Secretary of the Navy in support of the efforts of the Liberty Veterans Association (the LVA) to obtain a full, fair, and objective U. S. Government investigation of that 1967 Israeli attack on the LIBERTY. When we thus wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, we had only recently learned of a 16 March 2005 admission by the Department of the Navy, in an official letter reply to a Congressional inquiry, that the only investigation that the United States Government had ever made into that attack was a Navy Court of Inquiry which was conducted - and concluded -- within ten days after the attack had occurred. In our letter to the Secretary we presented facts of official record which demonstrated that the investigation conducted by that Navy Court of Inquiry, to put it most charitably, was a hasty, a superficial, an incomplete, and a totally inadequate inquiry into the extremely complex and important matter that had prompted it. In addition, we have within the past two years developed additional evidence, in the form of testimony and an affidavit by the Navy judge advocate counsel to that Court of Inquiry, that the conclusions recorded by the Court were ordered by the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense and were inconsistent with and were contrary to any evidence the Court of Inquiry had adduced.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 09:11 AM

LIBERTY SURVIVORS PUT UP $10,000 CHALLENGE!!!

The Liberty Veterans Association offers a $10,000 reward to anyone who can establish the truth of A. Jay Cristol's claim:

"After ten official US investigations (including five congressional
investigations), there was never any evidence that the attack was
made with knowledge that the target was a US ship."
The LVA has disputed the truth of this statement for years. We know it is untrue. The claim that there have been any official Congressional investigations into the culpability for the Israeli attack on USS Liberty is patently false. There have been NO official Congressional investigations on this subject. We believe that the best way to prove that the above statement is untrue is to offer a reward to anyone (including Mr. Cristol) who can prove that it is true.

gumboot

5th July 2008, 10:20 AM

It's pretty clear, when you look into it, that the Liberty was a victim of bad luck more than anything else.

-Due to communication problems they didn't receive the orders to close no closer than 100 nmi from the coast.
-Due to simple bad luck it happened to be in the vicinity of where Israeli forces believed an Egyptian ship was shelling El Arish.
-Due to bad luck an Israeli pilot mistook one of the ship's antennae for a gun.
-Due to back luck the MTBs couldn't signal the Liberty clearly.
-Due to bad luck one of the 50cal guns on the Liberty began firing at the MTBs due to ammunition exploding.
-Due to bad luck one of the crewmen on the Liberty misheard the Captain's order to ceasefire and instead opened fire on the MTBs.
-Due to bad luck the officers on the MTBs misidentified the Liberty and interpreted her movements and actions as a hostile response to their signaling.

All in all it's pretty clear what happened.

However what wasn't bad luck was that on June 5 Israel told the USA they would defend the coastline with all means at their disposal including sinking unidentified ships, and that the USA responded by claiming all of their forces were hundreds of miles away, and never once telling Israel that the Liberty was in the Eastern Med.

The reason the US did this is pretty obvious - the Liberty was spying on the progress of the war. That makes them a belligerent, and therefore a legitimate military target.

fuelair

5th July 2008, 10:45 AM

My bolding. Then the question becomes: known to which Israelis? The prime minister? the military high command? some local unit commander(s)? I don't know how, particularly, this kind of stuff works in war time, and wouldn't know where to begin. There is a tendency to assume a kind of unitary mind -- we all talk this way, the "Israelis knew", the "Americans knew", the "Yankees have given up for the year" -- but when we stop and think we realize it isn't true.
My specific assumption, whatever the field forces knew is that it was organized, on purpose, because of where the ship was and it was, at least known to top military leaders in CofC, the PM and possibly limited members of the Knesset. The assumption in "Israelis knew", "Americans knew" (etc.) is that the upper echelon of governance and side persons directly needing to be involved were the ones who knew. Note that I said assumption and I said 90% convinced. I am 100% convinced that the survivors who were interviewed on film/tape for a documentary some years back believed it. None are/were actors/ none were/are politicians none sounded or looked in any way like they were lying. I mostly stay away from this one, but I find calling people who accept/believe it anti-semitic unless there is some other evidence to hang that label on them with to be offensive.

Outside of movies, and outside of true idiot friendly fire, this would never be done by any rational country without approval at the highest level of authority. I am 90% certain that that approval was initiated and given by/at the behest of the PM of Israel for the reason I noted above and carried out the way it was to conceal for public purposes that that is how it happened. I do not know that or state that as a fact, but under the circumstances I doubt that any data proving otherwise with unbreakable back up/verification can or will be brought up/out/to anyone's attention. If it is, I will happily admit my error. I would prefer to think that it was truly a friendly fire accident, I would be more comfortable if I could think that. But, at this point, I really cannot.

roundhead

5th July 2008, 10:46 AM

fuelair

5th July 2008, 10:53 AM

SDC

5th July 2008, 10:57 AM

If that is how and why, as I pretty much believe, and I had been President, an investigation would not have needed to be made, Israel would not have had a chance to make that mistake a second time. But then LBJ was better than the other choice, but still a real tool.

1/ In what way would they not "have had the chance to make that mistake a second time"?

2/ LBJ was a "real tool" of whom or what?

Let's speak precisely.

quicknthedead

5th July 2008, 11:07 AM

1. Other transcripts exist, but are covered up. The attack was deliberate.
2. There are no other transcripts. However, the existing transcripts were misinterpreted by several people. The Israelis misidentified the ship.

I support option 2. I think about this in the following way. Imagine you read a part of these transcripts but no one makes it clear to you that it refers to the Helicopters. You may naturally assume the transcripts involve the pilots which attacked the ship. Then, due to several mentions of the US, or US flag, you conclude that the attack was deliberate. Now, you are asked about these 30-40 years later, and naturally some of the details are changed by memory.

One of the points that lends support for my speculation is that the people who were more directly involved in recording these transcripts tend to be of the opinion that the attack was not deliberate. One is Marvin Nowicki (http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.html), mentioned earlier. Another is Richard W. Hickman (http://libertyincident.com/hebrewlinguist3.html), which translated the transcripts.

Regarding your statement in the above bolded, did you read the two statements by Kirby and Lang inside my post#75?

I read Nowicki, who does seem forthright and believable; Hickman stated he was only involved in transcribing the intercept of the Israeli rescue helicopters after the incident. Nevertheless, Kirby and Lang have entirely different perspectives and testimonies, were directly involved at the time, and also sound convincing and believable.

Thanks.

jmeadors

5th July 2008, 11:49 AM

As someone who has more than a passing interest in the USS Liberty I have been a sometimes-poster, sometimes-lurker in other forums who are discussing the attack on our ship.

I was recently made aware of the discussion currently underway in the JREF forum and have read most of the notes that have been posted.

While I welcome the discussion that is ongoing and hope that it will continue I would appreciate it if someone would take the time to apply the techniques employed by James Randi and Steve Novella, et al, in their analysis of the evidence currently available about the attack.

I’m particularly interested in someone employing these techniques in analyzing the research of Jay Cristol as codified in his book, The Liberty Incident

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
joe@ussliberty.com

Loss Leader

5th July 2008, 12:05 PM

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor

Mr. Meadors - The vast weight of the available evidence indicates that your ship was spying on two countries that were at war with each other, far closer to their coasts than it should have been after your government assured Israel it had no ships in the area.

The attack on the Liberty was a friendly fire incident that was at least partially the fault of the superiors who sent you there. Israel admitted its mistake and paid compensation.

Thank you for your service to our nation.

Loss Leader

5th July 2008, 12:09 PM

not a legit target when in International waters, and not at war.

Are you contending that it was impossible for an Egyptian ship to be in international waters while Egypt was attacking Israel? Are you honestly arguing that the concept of "intentational waters" means anything when a nation conducts a sneak attack upon another nation?

You know what? Never mind. Evidence means nothing to you.

Doctor Evil

5th July 2008, 12:20 PM

Regarding your statement in the above bolded, did you read the two statements by Kirby and Lang inside my post#75?

I read Nowicki, who does seem forthright and believable; Hickman stated he was only involved in transcribing the intercept of the Israeli rescue helicopters after the incident. Nevertheless, Kirby and Lang have entirely different perspectives and testimonies, were directly involved at the time, and also sound convincing and believable.

Thanks.

W. PATRICK LANG, was in the Army and not NSA. I count not find a bio which specifies exactly where and when he served. I did find one (http://www.turcopolier.com/biography.html) which states that he served two years in Vietnam. He started his Mideast specialization in the 70's and it is unlikely that he saw the transcripts before that. Moreover, his story does not make sense. You have a highly classified tapes, supposedly suppressed by NSA, which are used as a course material in the Army?

As far as I could find Kirby did serve in the NSA at the time. On the other hand, the details he gives are consistent with the transcripts that we already have, namely the ones between the Helicopters and the control tower. I am not sure whether he read the transcripts at the time. (The information that Nowicki gives suggests that the tapes were not treated as urgent material, and were probably not known to the first inquiry.) I think it is possible that Kirby saw the transcripts we have and mistook these to be communications with the fighter planes. Furthermore, why do you