USS Liberty in the news again

[svero]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031023/ap_on_go_ot/spy_ship_israel_4

"WASHINGTON - A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." "



I don't really know much about this, so I don't really have an opinion as to whether it was an accident or not. But what do people here think of this statement? On the surface this fellow seems like a credible witness. What reason would he have to come out with this statement now if he was lying?

[Gem]

What reason would he have to come out with this statement now if he was lying?

Possibly revenge against someone, but that's just an idea out of the blue.

If you ask me, we won't be sure until much later in history.

Gem

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by svero
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031023/ap_on_go_ot/spy_ship_israel_4

"WASHINGTON - A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." "



I don't really know much about this, so I don't really have an opinion as to whether it was an accident or not. But what do people here think of this statement? On the surface this fellow seems like a credible witness. What reason would he have to come out with this statement now if he was lying?

I think you're an anti-Semite for even bringing the subject up.

[Skeptic]

What reason would he have to come out with this statement now if he was lying?

(shrug)

Well, the reason for him coing out now is clear, and stated in the Yahoo! report: he came out to protect the truth (as he sees it) because a new, comprehensive book on the subject was recently published, with the no-too-startling conclusion that it was an accident.

The man is probably sincere, but surely, the issue depends not on whether he is honest or not, but on what the "undeniable evidence" he claims is. It is likely that it is not so "undeniable", especially since recent reports (like this book), based on newly declassified information, are unanimous that it was an accident.

"True believers" coming out to blast "heretical" new information that does not agree with what they know to be "undeniably" true is hardly a new occurance. Randi's usually conclusive proofs of "psychics" cheating got him nothing but derision from the scientists who ran the psi experiments, who of course knew "without a doubt" that their subjects are honest. A more recent example, Hoagland came out with his claim that NASA is engaged in a coverup after the Mars surveyour showed conclusively that the "Face on Mars" is just an eroded mesa.

No doubt Hoagland, Targ and Puthoff, and this person are honest of their criticism. But just becuase someone is honest doesn't mean they're right.

[svero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B] But just becuase someone is honest doesn't mean they're right.

True. I'm not sure I see much motive for an attack like this. There's a note at the end of that suggesting they hoped the us would attack egypt or somesuch but that feels a little far fetched. What other motives are suggested for a reason that Israel might have commited this attack on purpose? Is there anything more likely than the above explanation? (which frankly isn't very compelling)

[JamesM]

Originally posted by svero
What other motives are suggested for a reason that Israel might have commited this attack on purpose? Is there anything more likely than the above explanation? (which frankly isn't very compelling)
Some other motives have been suggested. The oldest (I think) is that the Liberty was attacked because it would have overheard preparations for the impending invasion of the Golan Heights.

A newer motive was suggested by James Bamford, in his book 'Body of Secrets', which claimed that the Liberty was attacked to cover up evidence of the execution of POWs. The evidence for such a war-crime occuring is both sparse and highly disputed.

Ward Boston has expressed his belief that the attack was no accident on previous occasions. What's new here is the claim that McNamara and Johnson ordered a cover-up. Interesting.

edited to change 'Walsh' to 'Ward Boston'. Whoops!

[svero]

Originally posted by JamesM

Walsh has expressed his belief that the attack was no accident on previous occasions. What's new here is the claim that McNamara and Johnson ordered a cover-up. Interesting.

Which of course brings up an equally interesting question... which is, supposing there was a purposeful attack, whatever explanation you come up with for the motive also has to gel with the explanation for the coverup. So like, one might ask... If they attacked the liberty to trick the US into attacking Egypt then why did the US help them cover that up. Doesn't make much sense. What could make sense is something like, the US helped them attack the boat to give the US a propaganda excuse to join the war if needed or something like that. At least it's consistent if you're willing to be that cynical.

[Skeptic]

Some other motives have been suggested. The oldest (I think) is that the Liberty was attacked because it would have overheard preparations for the impending invasion of the Golan Heights.

Of course, the slight flaw with that "explanation" is that there isn't the slightest evidence for it. It's just an after-the-fact "real reason" invented by the same people who think the attack was deliberate, when they wake up to the fact that there isn't any concievable motive for a deliberate attack.

It is the same sort of "explanations" you get from conspiracy theorists in other fields: "but why WOULD the government fake the moon landing / assassinate JFK / hide aliens / whatever?" "why, the real reason is... (continue with some made-up fantasy to explain the original made-up fantasy)".

Like most conspiracy theory "explanations", it is self-contradictory. We are supposed to believe, at the same time, that israel was so strongly CONTROLLED by the USA that the mere fact that the USA would find out about its plans for the Golan would force israel to change them. But we are also supposed to believe israel was so strongly CONTROLLING the USA, that it could deliberately attack a US navy ship with impunity, trusting the "jewish lobby in washington" to cover it up by forcing the hand of the US president!

In the real world, this sort of thing doesn't make any sense (it's the equivalent of making sure the police "doesn't notice" you are robbing a bank by barbecuing a police car that happened to be there with a flame thrower), but this never stopped conspiracy theories before.

A newer motive was suggested by James Bamford, in his book 'Body of Secrets', which claimed that the Liberty was attacked to cover up evidence of the execution of POWs. The evidence for such a war-crime occuring is both sparse and highly disputed.

Due mainly to the reason that it never happen.

Once more, the whole thing makes no sense: the claim was that the "Liberty" crew could SEE the POWs being killed in a "secret location" over 20 miles away from where the ship was! That would require vision that superman does not possess, yet once more, the obvious absurdity of the charges didn't stop those who want to believe in "israeli atrocities" from accepting them.

[a_unique_person]

As they said on "Yes, Minister", "Don't hold an enquiry unless you already know the outcome".

[Mr Manifesto]

Speaking of enquiries, an independent one was held in January. Read about it here (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/moorer-liberty.htm). It concludes:

· Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.

· Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.

· Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded.

As a result, our commission concluded that:

· There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.

· In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States

· The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.

· The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.


The enquiry does not give a motive for the attack.

[zenith-nadir]

Oh...here we go...the old USS Liberty argument...some people have to reach back three decades ago to find the single incident where Americans were killed by Israel.


Well here's a newsflash;


Senator Robert F. Kennedy - assasinated by Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan.

U.S. Ambassador Cleo A. Noel - assasinated by Palestinian terrorists.

U.S. Diplomat George C. Moore - assasinated by Palestinian terrorists.

U.S. Ambassador Frances E. Meloy - assasinated by Palestinian terrorists.

U.S. Economic Counselor Robert O.Waring - assasinated by Palestinian terrorists.

U.S. Embassy - Political Officer William Buckley - assasinated by Palestinian terrorists.

US Navy Seaman Robert Dean Stethem - Tortured and shot by Palestinian terrorists.

Disabled American Leon Klinghoffer - Shot and thrown overboard by Palestinian terrorists.

Fulbright scholarship convoy security guards John Martin Linde Jr, John Branchizio, Mark Parsons - Killed by remote controlled bomb by Palestinian terrorists.

There are 59 more Americans who have been killed by Palestinian terrorists just in the past decade.





Funny, there have been no special inquiries, no calls stating "In attacking American ambassadors and citizens, Palestinians have committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States"....

In fact the man who ordered 90% of those assasinations won a nobel peace prize and is about to get a free country.

[JamesM]

Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.
This is highly unlikely. The argument is that the Israeli single-seater Mirages and Super Mysteres did the jamming. There just wasn't space in 1967 for those planes to have the jamming equipment necessary. I believe that it is normal even today to have multicrewed planes when jamming, as it's virtually impossible to steer a plane and jam at the same time. Additionally, the Liberty was able to call to help - it got through to the Sixth Fleet. It is much more likely that the difficulty that the Liberty experienced with communications was due to the damage to its cables it had received during the attack.

Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded.
This is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of the crew of the Liberty. As ever, I recommend reading the US Naval Court of Inquiry (http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt).

[Skeptic]

JamesM, you're posting facts and using common sense again. That's a no-no when arguing with conspiracy theorists. It just proves you're part of the evil zionist coverup of their awful murders, you know.

Incidentally, going to the web site "Mr. Manifesto" posted, you see where these guys get most of their material:

All insiders, whistle-blowers, researchers, journalists, and others are encouraged to send us important, sensitive documents. You can remain anonymous.

Yup, just the source for an unbiased report: self-proclaimed "wistleblowers" sending documents anonymously to a web site. What could be inaccurate about THAT?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Speaking of enquiries, an independent one was held in January. Read about it here (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/moorer-liberty.htm). It concludes:

This "independent inquiry" begs the question. It assumes the official U.S. and Israeli inquiries were just massive conspiracies and coverups to prove that they were.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
JamesM, you're posting facts and using common sense again. That's a no-no when arguing with conspiracy theorists. It just proves you're part of the evil zionist coverup of their awful murders, you know.

Incidentally, going to the web site "Mr. Manifesto" posted, you see where these guys get most of their material:



Yup, just the source for an unbiased report: self-proclaimed "wistleblowers" sending documents anonymously to a web site. What could be inaccurate about THAT?
Are you claiming the signatories to the report do not exist? Is the report faked? are the 3 admirals (one an ex CJCS) and a marine general loonie conspiracy kooks?

[Skeptic]

Are you claiming the signatories to the report do not exist?

Nope.

Is the report faked?

Nope, it's just obviously wrong.

are the 3 admirals (one an ex CJCS) and a marine general loonie conspiracy kooks?

Well, to start with, the "independent" inquiry is their own honorific: it is obviously called "independent" merely in the sense that it is unofficial, after every official invetigation concluded that the attack was accidental. Their view, whatever their rank is, isn't any sort of official conclusion--or the result of any sort of investigation that can be checked (unlike the official reports, there isn't anything in this claim about how they reached their conclusions). It's merely the expression of dissatisfaction by people acting as private individuals, representing themselves, not their organization.

Obviously, they are true believers: since the official investigation "got it wrong" (e.g., disagreed with them), they decided to set up an "independent" committee (e.g., of those who agree with them) to tell us all "the truth". But how do they know the official investigation "got it wrong"? Well, it disagreed with them, didn't it? This sort of begging the question--1). The attack was deliberate, so any committee that disagreed isn't "independent" and was surely biased; 2). Since all "unbiased and independent" committees reached the decision that the attack was deliberate, it was--is typical of conspiracy theories.

So, yes, they ARE conspiracy theorists and true believers... about this issue. Are they "kooks" about other issues? Probably not. But we all have our pet beliefs and delusions, and this seems to be theirs. Why do they have it? I don't know. Surely they feel strongly about it, probably honestly, but this hardly guarantees that they're correct--especially since, as said above, their claims are, at least in a few cases, quite obviously not only WRONG, but simply IMPOSSIBLE, as in the case of the alleged "jamming" of the USS Liberty's communications.

P.S.

I'm surprised, however, that you are so eager to defend high-ranking military officers all of a sudden. Usually, you tend to hold the view that Bush (the commander in chief) is an "idiot", his generals and military advisors are "warmongers", the military leadership is a bunch of fools, and so on and so forth. If anything, one would expect from you the reaction that if something is said by a general or an admiral, then that in itself is enough to consider it another piece of military propaganda, or something similar.

Why the sudden turnaround? You, of all people, defending the honor of the great officers of the American Navy from the midgets who would dare to criticize them? Oh, wait--they're accusing israel of something bad! Well, all bets are off. When it comes to blaming the jews, your distrust of high ranking military officers of the imperialist USA is suddenly wiped clean. After all, if they're smearing israel, they can't be ALL bad, can they?

P.P.S.

By the way, in 1894, a court-martial made up of high ranking French officers, including generals, convicted Dreyfuss for treason. Zola, among others, condemned the court's ruling as wrong and a miscarriage of justice.

He was attacked viciously... in exactly the same way you just attacked me: by claiming that it is not nice to say that high-ranking military officers could make a dumb mistake. And, just as in your case, these attacks against Zola came not only from the "old guard", but also from many who in general had much criticism of the French army.

Why? For the same reason you are now "shocked" that I would claim high-ranking officers are making asses of themselves: saying that high-ranking officers are wrong sometimes is one thing... but saying that they are wrong about condemning the jews, THAT'S something else entirely! After all, we all know what those jews are REALLY like, don't we?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[BWhy? For the same reason you are now "shocked" that I would claim high-ranking officers are making asses of themselves: saying that high-ranking officers are wrong sometimes is one thing... but saying that they are wrong about condemning the jews, THAT'S something else entirely! After all, we all know what those jews are REALLY like, don't we? [/B]

you really can't help yourelf can you...Is this a compulsive obsessive thingy?? That last line "we all know what jews are REALLY like, don't we" Was that really needed? Your not paranoid its just everyone is secretly conspiring to get you???? Seriously "skeptic" get some help dude.....

The only thing I challanged was your portrayal of the document as some worthless rag off an anonymous whistleblowers site.... I could not care less about what you think of the document, I have not studied it and don't have an opinion on it either....But it is a report from senior and well respected military officers.....I don't care if you heap poo on its conclusions but attempting to misrepresent it as a scrap of paper off an anonymous whistleblowers site is typical of you.

and by the way...It seems your capslock is still playing up.....

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by The Fool

....But it is a report from senior and well respected military officers.....

...and it carries exactly as much weight as Captain Kevin Randle (USAF-Ret)'s conclusion that the Air Force is, in fact, covering up extraterrestrial visitation. Rank and seniority have nothing to do with skills or capability in the requisite areas; the "independent" researchers' military credentials are completely meaningless. It's like having a cellular biologist "independently and unbiasedly" review a hydrology study. He's a Ph.D, after all...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


...and it carries exactly as much weight as Captain Kevin Randle (USAF-Ret)'s conclusion that the Air Force is, in fact, covering up extraterrestrial visitation. Rank and seniority have nothing to do with skills or capability in the requisite areas; the "independent" researchers' military credentials are completely meaningless. It's like having a cellular biologist "independently and unbiasedly" review a hydrology study. He's a Ph.D, after all...

sigh...whatever.
so you think its comparable to anonymous documents from a conspiracy theory site Josh?

[davefoc]

For years I believed that the Liberty was probably intentionally attacked. I didn't know why, but clearly the US government had acted in various ways to cover up the incident. I also wasn't sure of what the Israeli motivation was but I thought one of the various theories floating around might be correct.

Long before the current release of information it was fairly well known that the initial US inquiry had been a sham.

None the less, despite the compelling evidence that it was an intentional attack on the US Liberty, I personally have decided it probably wasn't. This is one of those times where there is strong evidence for two possibilities and only one of those possibilities can be true.

I would also like to commend ZN on one of the most irrelevant posts put forth in any thread to this date in JREF.

[Skeptic]

But it is a report from senior and well respected military officers.....

My point exactly, "Fool": Since when do YOU believe there is such a thing as a "well respected military officer" in the American armed forces? Until this moment, you only referred to high ranking military personnel in terms of derision, as idiots, warmongers, and so on.

But the moment some of them blame israel for something--then, all of a sudden, they are "senior and well respected military officers". Your hate of israel is so strong, that it negates all other considerations, and makes you forget the long list of other things you must "hate" to be a good "enlightened non-racist human being".

Killing of innocents is bad... unless it's against israel; military officers are murderous idiots... unless they blame israel; women right's and democracy are important... unless someone says the Palestinians should institute them; and so on and so forth. When it comes to your little list-o'-hate, the jews are on the top; everything else must take the back seat.

Churchill once said that, if Hitler invaded hell, he'd make at least somewhat favorable remarks about the devil in his speeches in the house of commons. In your case, if the devil invaded israel, you'd be making speeches on this forum in his favor.

First of all, you'd point out that the devil is merely legitimately resisting the occupation of hell by all those agressive zionists who, no doubt, go there when they die. Besides, you'd say, who ever said the devil's such a bad guy, anyway? Sure, the bible says so, but it was mostly written by jews living in occupied Palestine (not that the Palestinians existed then), so it is surely biased.

I mean, there's even a web site (http://www.churchofsatan.com/) supporting Satan, with so many high ranking and well respected (http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/Religion-Satanists_Photos.html) people in his service! Surely, his invasion of israel should not be dismissed as unjust, now should it?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by The Fool


sigh...whatever.
so you think its comparable to anonymous documents from a conspiracy theory site Josh?

Firstly, to answer your question, no, because this "inquiry" is not anonymous. However, it is comparable to a conclusion reached by a panel consisting of you, me, and davefoc, if we had chosen to conduct our own "independent inquiry".

Secondly, military inquiries are conducted under rather strict standards as far as evidence and procedure goes, and there is never the need for a second "independent" inquiry. The inquiry into the Liberty incident was no different than any other accident or incident inquiry - for instance the case of an American fighter pilot who flew through a ski-lift cable in Italy, causing a car to fall and its occupants to die; or the case of an F-117A that lost a wing in flight at an airshow and landed on somebody's house in the Carolinas. The official inquiries into those incidents were published and not questioned. Yet for some reason, this one was questioned - a few select people decided it was wrong, and those few individuals decided to conduct an "independent" inquiry which, unsurprisingly, found the official inquiry to be false. The report can not be fairly called "unbiased".

The fact that this "independent" inquiry was carried out with absolutely no official sanction from anyone also means that it was responsible and accountable to no one (hot air about the "public" and "victims" notwithstanding); therefore, standards and procedures were vulnerable to laxity.

This second, "independent" inquiry is simply not sufficiently credible.

[Skeptic]

Firstly, to answer your question, no, because this "inquiry" is not anonymous. However, it is comparable to a conclusion reached by a panel consisting of you, me, and davefoc, if we had chosen to conduct our own "independent inquiry".

Secondly, military inquiries are conducted under rather strict standards as far as evidence and procedure goes, and there is never the need for a second "independent" inquiry. The inquiry into the Liberty incident was no different than any other accident or incident inquiry - for instance the case of an American fighter pilot who flew through a ski-lift cable in Italy, causing a car to fall and its occupants to die; or the case of an F-117A that lost a wing in flight at an airshow and landed on somebody's house in the Carolinas. The official inquiries into those incidents were published and not questioned. Yet for some reason, this one was questioned - a few select people decided it was wrong, and those few individuals decided to conduct an "independent" inquiry which, unsurprisingly, found the official inquiry to be false. The report can not be fairly called "unbiased".

The fact that this "independent" inquiry was carried out with absolutely no official sanction from anyone also means that it was responsible and accountable to no one (hot air about the "public" and "victims" notwithstanding); therefore, standards and procedures were vulnerable to laxity.

But, Joshua, if you'll keep using logic and facts, "The Fool" will NEVER be able to blame israel for this!

This second, "independent" inquiry is simply not sufficiently credible.

But it blames israel, Joshua; how can a report that does that NOT be credible?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool

Are you claiming the signatories to the report do not exist? Is the report faked? are the 3 admirals (one an ex CJCS) and a marine general loonie conspiracy kooks?

Ok Fool, they exist.....

But then it wouldn't be the first time that Adm. Moorer has been used (and abused) by leftists with an agenda. Check this out:

Decades later, Adm. Moorer again figured in the news because of the war. He had been a source for a much-disputed 1998 CNN report on Operation Tailwind, which charged that U.S. forces used a lethal nerve gas on American defectors in Laos during the war.

CNN producers said Adm. Moorer confirmed the sarin gas story, but the admiral later denied independent knowledge of its use. CNN retracted the report, fired two producers and reprimanded the on-air reporter, Peter Arnett.

"It was an insult to the young men that do this very dangerous work to try to set up accusations they were trying to kill Americans," he told The Washington Post. "It made everyone mad as hell. No Americans were killed, no gas was dropped."


So, has Adm. moorer been either misquoted, or had stuff made up about him once again? Should we ask him?
The Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20582-2004Feb6.html)

You can if you have a Quija board. The poor fellow has moved beyond earthly cares....as of when? Feb 7th 2004.

ADM. MOORER DIED LAST SATURDAY!

...isn't that convenient? So I suppose there can't be any more angry rebuttals from the old guy, eh??

Seems weird to me that Adm Moorer's name is trotted out on a conspiracy theory site just 2 days after he buys the farm. Doesn't it to you Manifesto??

-z

NOTE: The Post article lists all Moorer's accomplishments, as well as controversial issues he was party to because of his rank. The article lists no inquiry into USS Liberty that he was party to. "Official" or not.

[rikzilla]

Actually Moorer was the last.

Now ALL of the members of that "unofficial" inquiry that Manifesto so kindly posted a link to are currently at room temperature.

Nope, no angry rebuttals from those guys. :rolleyes: Feel free to bandy their names about web pages such as that of Jeff Rense (http://www.rense.com)

Obviously it must be real! Look at all the other "REAL" stuff he has on his site! :big:

-z

[renata]

Threads on this topic come up regularly, with same exact arguments.

Here are some

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9644

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26603




Note that past summer National Security Agency released tapes from the recordings of the conversations between Israeli pilots and ground control appears Israeli pilots did think it was an Egyptian ship. This is touched on in both threads.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by davefoc
I would also like to commend ZN on one of the most irrelevant posts put forth in any thread to this date in JREF.



AWESOME!

In 498,518 posts, mine is the "most irrelevant" at JREF....and people said I would never amount to anything!

[Chaos]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir




AWESOME!

In 498,518 posts, mine is the "most irrelevant" at JREF....and people said I would never amount to anything!

If the language award was still on, I would nominate you. (Yeah, the achievements just keep coming in, don´t they?)

[gnome]

I'm with those that believe the classic "conspiracy" to be senseless... if they could count on us to cover up the attack on the Liberty--surely it would have made more sense to obtain our complicity before the fact. We would have been much happier to help them before they killed Americans, I'm pretty sure.

I see no real reason to think it was anything but an accident.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Chaos
If the language award was still on, I would nominate you. (Yeah, the achievements just keep coming in, don´t they?)


I appreciate the nomination!

And I am happy to finally find a message board with so many perfect people. I hope one day to fulfill the level of perfection that so many of you have attained.

[davefoc]

In 498,518 posts, mine is the "most irrelevant" at JREF....and people said I would never amount to anything!

Control yourself there ZN, I said "one of the most irrelevant" not "the most irrelevant".

You probably didn't do much better than break into one of the top five most irrelevant posts. But keep trying with your skill in this regard, I think you have a good chance to capture the top spot soon.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic

My point exactly, "Fool": Since when do YOU believe there is such a thing as a "well respected military officer" in the American armed forces? Until this moment, you only referred to high ranking military personnel in terms of derision, as idiots, warmongers, and so on.

Lies as usual, please show where I have done this.


But the moment some of them blame israel for something--then, all of a sudden, they are "senior and well respected military officers". Your hate of israel is so strong, that it negates all other considerations, and makes you forget the long list of other things you must "hate" to be a good "enlightened non-racist human being".

Lies as usual, please show some examples (one will do) of where I have expressed hate for Israel.



Killing of innocents is bad... unless it's against israel; military officers are murderous idiots... unless they blame israel; women right's and democracy are important... unless someone says the Palestinians should institute them; and so on and so forth. When it comes to your little list-o'-hate, the jews are on the top; everything else must take the back seat.

Lies as usual, please show examples


Churchill once said that, if Hitler invaded hell, he'd make at least somewhat favorable remarks about the devil in his speeches in the house of commons. In your case, if the devil invaded israel, you'd be making speeches on this forum in his favor.

Lies as usua, please show examples


First of all, you'd point out that the devil is merely legitimately resisting the occupation of hell by all those agressive zionists who, no doubt, go there when they die. Besides, you'd say, who ever said the devil's such a bad guy, anyway? Sure, the bible says so, but it was mostly written by jews living in occupied Palestine (not that the Palestinians existed then), so it is surely biased.

I mean, there's even a web site (http://www.churchofsatan.com/) supporting Satan, with so many high ranking and well respected (http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/Religion-Satanists_Photos.html) people in his service! Surely, his invasion of israel should not be dismissed as unjust, now should it?
sorry, I can't comment on one of your wierd rants about supernatural beings.


All in all it appears you are simply a childish liar. How about you(for once) provide a single scrap of evidence to support your accusations....Thats all I have ever asked and yet you stagger on regardless lying compulsively and ignoring any requests to show even one example of what you imagine I say....

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by JamesM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of the crew of the Liberty. As ever, I recommend reading the US Naval Court of Inquiry (http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt).

This tale seems to stem from a boilerman on the Liberty by name of Hrankowski. He said he witnessed it in an interview with PRAVDA. However, since he was a boilerman, one wonders why he was in a position to see this claimed atrocity, since he should have been doing his work down below.

This 'shooting the lifeboats' incident never happened. It is obviously a point where this "independent inquiry' has gone off the deep end.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


This tale seems to stem from a boilerman on the Liberty by name of Hrankowski. He said he witnessed it in an interview with PRAVDA. However, since he was a boilerman, one wonders why he was in a position to see this claimed atrocity, since he should have been doing his work down below.

This 'shooting the lifeboats' incident never happened. It is obviously a point where this "independent inquiry' has gone off the deep end.
This is a common thing with eyewitness testimony, especially of such a traumatic event. Honest people can have greatly differing recall of the same event. There are actually more than one person who claimed the "shooting the lifeboats" occured.....Its quite possible they adopted this belief after hearing others talking....These people would have a lot of trouble separating what they saw from what they heard other people say they saw in such a traumatic setting....

"Anyone who is familiar with the Israeli democratic system, with a free press and a myriad of political rivalries cannot believe that a deliberate attack on an American ship would not have been known to dozens if not hundreds of people. It would be simply inconceivable that a cover-up could have been maintained for 35 years. There was absolutely no motive for attacking the Liberty."
Adminral Shlom Erell

This quote sums it up for me.... There are just too many people that would have betrayed a conspiracy of silence..... My opinion is mistaken identity is by far the most likely explanation. But please don't let that stop people from branding people who have other views as kooks and loonies.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Chaos
If the language award was still on, I would nominate you.
It's not dead, it's just sleeping. It'll be back soon. Very soon.

[Skeptic]

This quote sums it up for me.... There are just too many people that would have betrayed a conspiracy of silence..... My opinion is mistaken identity is by far the most likely explanation

...or so you say now, after irrefutable evidence to that effect had surfaced in ways even you cannot dismiss as "zionist propaganda".

[davefoc]

skeptic said:...or so you say now, after irrefutable evidence to that effect had surfaced in ways even you cannot dismiss as "zionist propaganda".

Are you sure that you aren't guilty of exactly what you accuse of Fool of here. On previous threads on this topic I have seen you discount the evidence that the attack was intentional like it was non-existent. It seems from this that you start from a place that any information that suggests Israeli blame for anything is automatically wrong and only in the face of overwhelming evidence could you be convinced it was true.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by davefoc
skeptic said:

Are you sure that you aren't guilty of exactly what you accuse of Fool of here. On previous threads on this topic I have seen you discount the evidence that the attack was intentional like it was non-existent. It seems from this that you start from a place that any information that suggests Israeli blame for anything is automatically wrong and only in the face of overwhelming evidence could you be convinced it was true.

Just let him go Dave, he chucks tantrums if you show facts that contradict his straw men.....you will notice he says "or so you say now" about my conclusions in this matter.... Its because my conclusions don't match the conclusions he made for me earlier in the thread.... I'm seriously begining to think he is actually starting to think people have actually said the fabrications he creates. You notice he also puts quotes around "zionist propaganda"...he constantly does this to infer that is what you have said.... I think if he keeps lying at this rate he will get a pimple on his tongue...what do you think?

[Samus]

bump...

More information released on the Liberty, including audio recordings, from NSA/CSS. Might as well go right to the source!

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html