USS Liberty - Anti-Semitic propaganda or History's Injustice?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So I've been attempting to do some research about the USS Liberty and found much of the "information" to be nothing but anti-jewish propaganda. For example, we're shown a scroll of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk's quote, "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous." Rather than allowing Prothink to get the last word, I thought I'd get to the bottom of this, with the help, of course, from my fellow JREFers. Was this another instance of a "false positive" much like the U.S. attack on IR655? Or was this a direct attack on U.S. forces? And does anyone know what percentage of Iranians think the shooting down of IR655 was an accident?

[geni]

So I've been attempting to do some research about the USS Liberty and found much of the "information" to be nothing but anti-jewish propaganda. For example, we're shown a scroll of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk's quote, "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."

Generaly that would be considered either legitimate critism of isreal or isreal bashing. Where does the anti jew bit come in?


Rather than allowing Prothink to get the last word, I thought I'd get to the bottom of this, with the help, of course, from my fellow JREFers.

Waste of time. Sure it was probably an acident but too many people have an interest in clouding the issues to get a firm fix on the details.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Generaly that would be considered either legitimate critism of isreal or isreal bashing. Where does the anti jew bit come in?
Here.
www.prothink.org
Waste of time. Sure it was probably an acident but too many people have an interest in clouding the issues to get a firm fix on the details.
Fair enough criticism. Kinda felt the same way, but I figured we got some Navy guys here who might know more.

[Doctor Evil]

This comes up periodically here. You can search for previous threads if you like.

Anyway, you may find the following interview with Rusk of interest:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/rusk.html
Apparently, he never was interested in the details of various investigations.

[JoeyDonuts]

In the case of the Vincennes incident, a number of factors contributed to it. USN CIC watchstanders have to study the incident pretty closely as it hits close to home. The airliner did not have its TCAS, or radar, active at the time of intercept. This takes away one of the surest methods of identification, passive ESM intercept. Even a novice EW technician would have ID'd the plane as a COMAIR within seconds - the signature on commercial airline radars is THAT distinctive. Also, it was not flying within an established air lane - it was unresponsive to multiple queries and warnings over 121.5 MHz, which every commercial pilot in the world should be guarding while airborne. Its altitude was decreasing, and her transponder was also off. If the XPNDR was active, it would have been picked up by the USS Vincennes' IFF ring and would have quite possibly forestalled the engagement as it would have returned altitude and tail number. It was also dropping in altitude and heading directly for the Vincennes. This matches a possible engagement envelope for an anti-ship engagement using the Exocet missile which was a very real threat.

Remember, the USS Stark actually had been attacked by a pair of Exocets in 1987, only one year prior. Tensions were still high, and most likely any aircraft that did everything IA655 did was going to get shot down. Also, the Vincennes' SH-60B helicopter had been fired upon earlier by Iranian patrol boats.

Bottom line, the crew reacted as they were supposed to. The ultimate blame resides with the Iranian government - who should have notified any and all civilian aircraft transiting the area of engagement that there were ongoing live-fire engagements happening.

But that would require the Iranian government taking responsibility for something. Highly unlikely.

[Alareth]

In the case of the Vincennes incident, a number of factors contributed to it. USN CIC watchstanders have to study the incident pretty closely as it hits close to home. The airliner did not have its TCAS, or radar, active at the time of intercept. This takes away one of the surest methods of identification, passive ESM intercept. Even a novice EW technician would have ID'd the plane as a COMAIR within seconds - the signature on commercial airline radars is THAT distinctive. Also, it was not flying within an established air lane - it was unresponsive to multiple queries and warnings over 121.5 MHz, which every commercial pilot in the world should be guarding while airborne. Its altitude was decreasing, and her transponder was also off. If the XPNDR was active, it would have been picked up by the USS Vincennes' IFF ring and would have quite possibly forestalled the engagement as it would have returned altitude and tail number. It was also dropping in altitude and heading directly for the Vincennes. This matches a possible engagement envelope for an anti-ship engagement using the Exocet missile which was a very real threat.

Remember, the USS Stark actually had been attacked by a pair of Exocets in 1987, only one year prior. Tensions were still high, and most likely any aircraft that did everything IA655 did was going to get shot down. Also, the Vincennes' SH-60B helicopter had been fired upon earlier by Iranian patrol boats.

Bottom line, the crew reacted as they were supposed to. The ultimate blame resides with the Iranian government - who should have notified any and all civilian aircraft transiting the area of engagement that there were ongoing live-fire engagements happening.

But that would require the Iranian government taking responsibility for something. Highly unlikely.


My CICO on the Monterey was the man that identified that airbus as hostile.

[JoeyDonuts]

My CICO on the Monterey was the man that identified that airbus as hostile.

I'd have done the same damn thing, shippie.

Your CICO was Monterey? I used to be pals with a few of their EW's, and an OS or two. Did some task grouping with them my first deployment in 2004 or so.

[Klimax]

In the case of the Vincennes incident, a number of factors contributed to it. USN CIC watchstanders have to study the incident pretty closely as it hits close to home. The airliner did not have its TCAS, or radar, active at the time of intercept. This takes away one of the surest methods of identification, passive ESM intercept. Even a novice EW technician would have ID'd the plane as a COMAIR within seconds - the signature on commercial airline radars is THAT distinctive. Also, it was not flying within an established air lane - it was unresponsive to multiple queries and warnings over 121.5 MHz, which every commercial pilot in the world should be guarding while airborne. Its altitude was decreasing, and her transponder was also off. If the XPNDR was active, it would have been picked up by the USS Vincennes' IFF ring and would have quite possibly forestalled the engagement as it would have returned altitude and tail number. It was also dropping in altitude and heading directly for the Vincennes. This matches a possible engagement envelope for an anti-ship engagement using the Exocet missile which was a very real threat.

Remember, the USS Stark actually had been attacked by a pair of Exocets in 1987, only one year prior. Tensions were still high, and most likely any aircraft that did everything IA655 did was going to get shot down. Also, the Vincennes' SH-60B helicopter had been fired upon earlier by Iranian patrol boats.

Bottom line, the crew reacted as they were supposed to. The ultimate blame resides with the Iranian government - who should have notified any and all civilian aircraft transiting the area of engagement that there were ongoing live-fire engagements happening.

But that would require the Iranian government taking responsibility for something. Highly unlikely.

So if I understand correctly,it behaved as some unidentified object with heading directly at ship with no IDed-able instrument active with similar path profile of attacking fighter with anti-ship missile.

[Caustic Logic]

I know nothing about the IR655 episode, or how exactly it's related. The Liberty I know a little more about, at least what the CT's claim, from watching the docu "dead in the Water." I have to say, from the evidence therein, it looks pretty bad for the Israelis. I don't recall Rusk in it, but Richard Helms also refused to believe the Israeli story, and others as well. It's a very convincing film.

That said, I found Stinnett's book on Pearl Harbor convincing until I looked deeper at the evidence, lately. I'd be curious to see a detailed debunking of this CT.

And, staying in a paranoid mode but looking for alternate explanations, I thought it made sense that it was actually a US false-flag op, masked as Israeli, masked as Egyptian. That sounds stupid now, I know... but the boat was not sunk. Everything else the Israelis did in that war was done right. This wasn't.

The docu said the attack was believed to be Egyptian, and triggered a nuclear response - jets with nuclear bombs were on their way to cairo until it was found the ship was still afloat, and MacNamara recalled them. That's just over-the-top enough it leaves me felling like someone's making stuff up.

So in short, I don't know.

[JoeyDonuts]

So if I understand correctly,it behaved as some unidentified object with heading directly at ship with no IDed-able instrument active with similar path profile of attacking fighter with anti-ship missile.

Ding ding.

Although the Iranians would tell you different. As would be expected.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I know nothing about the IR655 episode, or how exactly it's related.

Well, they're not actually related per se. In both instances, the target had been misidentified, and both were at sea. I was wondering how the Iraelis mistook the USS Liberty for the Egyptian el Quseir and if it was similar to the U.S. mistake about IR655. Seriously, why attack the U.S., your most important ally?

[Caustic Logic]

Well, they're not actually related per se. In both instances, the target had been misidentified, and both were at sea. I was wondering how the Iraelis mistook the USS Liberty for the Egyptian el Quseir and if it was similar to the U.S. mistake about IR655. Seriously, why attack the U.S., your most important ally?

From what I recall (I'll have to dig the VHS out, or look it up elsewhere) the attacking planes were unmarked and somehow mistaken for Egyptian. I think that was supposed to be the reason - false flag, to draw the US in. Tho without an explicit flag? I'll look around a bit.

Also some theories are that they wanted to destroy damning intercepts the Libertty had picked up of controversial Israeli moves. That's another possible reason.

[Caustic Logic]

Looks like the docu was not totally off. Bamford from Body of Secrets, citing a "study on the Liberty done for the U.S. Navy's Naval Law Review, written by a Navy lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen."
"To speculate on the motives of an attack group that uses unmarked planes and deprives helpless survivors of life rafts raises disturbing possibilities," he wrote, "including the one that the Liberty crew was not meant to survive the attack, and would not have, but for the incorrect 6th Fleet radio broadcast that help was on its way -- which had the effect of chasing off the MTBs [motor torpedo boats]." [p. 235]

And citing a 1981 NSA report:
A persistent question relating to the Liberty incident is whether or not the Israeli forces which attacked the ship knew that it was American . . . not a few of the Liberty's crewmen and [deleted but probably "NSA's G Group"] staff are convinced that they did. Their belief derived from consideration of the long time the Israelis had the ship under surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity of the attack itself.

Speculation as to the Israeli motivation varied. Some believed that Israel expected that the complete destruction of the ship and killing of the personnel would lead the U.S. to blame the UAR [Egypt] for the incident and bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Israel . . . others felt that Israeli forces wanted the ship and men out of the way.
here (http://www.geocities.com/attackliberty/).

So doubting the official Israeli story, we have Rusk, Helms, the crew of the ship, people at the NSA... MacNamara's response was strangely, agitatedly evasive on the issue (as can be seen in the video).

Methinks perhaps the reason anti-Semitic types cling to this is it is so solid from a factual basis - not 100% but well-supported as false flag CTs go). Then they use it to blster their BS. I saw an article once (in an oddbal paper in the garbage, so hard to re-locate) that the Liberty was sunk because it had observed a "white ship of death" where the Joos were shipping white (ie, Christian?) children, presumably for blood sacrifice.

Anyone want to argue there's no conspiracy here, and provide something to back it up? I'm open-minded.

[Caustic Logic]

Anyone want to argue there's no conspiracy here, and provide something to back it up? I'm open-minded.

Bump for anyone who's got this info

will check back after work.
Shalom

[Malkuth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj9VjNRpn4g

Here's a good doco with a lot of interview footage from the Liberty survivors. I have a few docos about this, but I think this one is the clearest.

[fezzic]

(IMO)

The USS Liberty incident sounds much like a friendly fire incident. Like most such incidents, all it would take is somebody questioning the identification to put a stop to the chain of events.

If the idea of friendly fire (such as it was) was not accepted, then the issue becomes how does the US prove intent? How can Israel prove fumbling? Who do you believe? An exceedingly messy situation with no definitive ability to prove things one way or another and whose likely outcome would be to tarnish even more the relations between the US and Israel.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Looks like the docu was not totally off. Bamford from Body of Secrets, citing a "study on the Liberty done for the U.S. Navy's Naval Law Review, written by a Navy lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen."


And citing a 1981 NSA report:

here (http://www.geocities.com/attackliberty/).

So doubting the official Israeli story, we have Rusk, Helms, the crew of the ship, people at the NSA... MacNamara's response was strangely, agitatedly evasive on the issue (as can be seen in the video).

Methinks perhaps the reason anti-Semitic types cling to this is it is so solid from a factual basis - not 100% but well-supported as false flag CTs go). Then they use it to blster their BS. I saw an article once (in an oddbal paper in the garbage, so hard to re-locate) that the Liberty was sunk because it had observed a "white ship of death" where the Joos were shipping white (ie, Christian?) children, presumably for blood sacrifice.

Anyone want to argue there's no conspiracy here, and provide something to back it up? I'm open-minded.

I've done some research but haven't yielded much results. I found Ray McGovern's take on it. Shockingly, he's anti-Israel. http://www.anti-war.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11719

I dunno, I'm just not seeing it. This follows the same "logic" as the truthers, just not to the extreme. Israel attacked a U.S. warship hoping to pass it off as an Egyptian attack? Is a case of mistaken identity really that far-fetched, especially with 1960's technology?

[UNLoVedRebel]

This is more complicated than I had anticipated. Here's an article written in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/USSLiberty.jpg
Title:USS Liberty and the NSA: One Deceit Too Many? By: Nacin, Andrew M., Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, , May/Jun2006, Vol. 25, Issue 4
Database:Academic Search Premier
Retrieved: April 6, 2009

[Thunder]

USS Liberty - Anti-Semitic propaganda or History's Injustice?

can't it be both??

[Caustic Logic]

I've done some research but haven't yielded much results. I found Ray McGovern's take on it. Shockingly, he's anti-Israel. http://www.anti-war.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11719

I dunno, I'm just not seeing it. This follows the same "logic" as the truthers, just not to the extreme. Israel attacked a U.S. warship hoping to pass it off as an Egyptian attack? Is a case of mistaken identity really that far-fetched, especially with 1960's technology?

Well, from your own link, we have this to add, referring to the article by Crewdson (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,66005.story?coll=chi_tab01_lay out), which:
refers to U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, who was the Navy lawyer appointed as senior counsel to Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, named by Admiral John S. McCain (Sen. John McCain's father) to "inquire into all the facts and circumstances." The fact that they were given only one week to gather evidence and were forbidden to contact the Israelis screams out "cover-up."

Captain Boston, now 84, signed a formal declaration on Jan. 8, 2004 in which he described himself as "outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.'" Boston continued:

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew...Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded – a war crime...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
(bolding mine)

But I'm no expert, so maybe I'm misreading that. And then, you dig some more and find:
This is more complicated than I had anticipated. Here's an article written in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Why in the hell did they make that a Jpeg? I just read about Cristol today as well. He uses faulty arguments to explain the story away. Not a good sign, if there's supposed to be counter evidence. We get some after the fach hellicopter audio that shows some Israelis didn't know what was going on. Neat. How about the actual attackers, or planners? No record available. Hmmm... you are hmming at this point, I hope.

Check Jim Ennes' book, or his site he runs with other survivors, all of whome somehow became what Cristol calls conspiracy theorists, so not too trustworthy - the shock of the tragic accident I guess messed up their brains.
http://www.gtr5.com/
older version (http://www.ussliberty.org/index2.html)

[Caustic Logic]

USS Liberty - Anti-Semitic propaganda or History's Injustice?

can't it be both??


If it were just an untrue propaganda story, the intentional targetting of a US ship that is, then what would be the injustice? That Israel is accused, I suppose. So in that case, yes, an unjust bit of anti-Semitic theorizing. If the allegations are true, then is it propaganda? I Guess truth can be used as such, as anything true can, for the right people... so then propaganda and injustice again. Now I'm confused - can you enlighten us as to what you meant there? Thx.

[Caustic Logic]

Malkuth, thanks for the vid link - I'll watch it soon

Fezzic - you don't know anything about this case, do you? Thanks for weighing in tho.

Others who'd like to find exculpatory evidence, or anything, here is another resource, the NSA's list of evidence they admit to having, finalized in release as of 6/8/07.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/index.shtml
Have at it!

[kookbreaker]

Check Jim Ennes' book, or his site he runs with other survivors, all of whome somehow became what Cristol calls conspiracy theorists, so not too trustworthy - the shock of the tragic accident I guess messed up their brains.
http://www.gtr5.com/
older version (http://www.ussliberty.org/index2.html)

I too take the accounts that Ennes has acquired with a grain of salt. Never mind that he doesn't actually represent all the crew of the Liberty, but some of their stories don't jibe at all and are pure mythmaking, such as the 'shooting crewmen in the water', or the 'Israel warned the US to move the Liberty'.

And you have to remember that Ennes was incapacitated at the start of the attack and did not witness it himself. He just decided it couldn't have been a friendly fire incident while he was recovering and that was that.

[WildCat]

Well, they're not actually related per se. In both instances, the target had been misidentified, and both were at sea. I was wondering how the Iraelis mistook the USS Liberty for the Egyptian el Quseir and if it was similar to the U.S. mistake about IR655. Seriously, why attack the U.S., your most important ally?
In 1967 the US was certainly not "the most important ally" of Israel.

IMHO, Israel thought the Vincennes was collecting intelligence to give to the Egyptians (it was a spy ship after all, and since it wasn't feeding info to Israel maybe Israel concluded it was feeding info to Egypt), and the US was actively trying to court Egypt at this time to draw them away from Soviet influence. Afterwards, private diplomacy between Israel and the US smoothed things out and the incident was shoved under the rug and everyone was happy - except the crew of the Liberty of course.

[WildCat]

And just to clarify how different US/Israel relations were in that era I'll point out that Israel did not fly any US aircraft at the time - most of their planes were built by the French. The only US aircraft flown by Israel prior to 1968 were obsolete WWII-era surplus which flooded the market after that war. Israel flew the P-51, for example, until 1961!

It wasn't until the Nixon admin. that Israeli-US relations became closer.

[Eddie Dane]

These crewmen went through a horrible, traumatising experience.
People have the natural tendency to see such an event as more than a stupid accident.
Just like many people don't want to hear that JFK was shot by a looney wannabe communist with a crappy job. JFK was too important to be shot by someone that unimportant.

The "evidence" against Israel?
They attacked again and again
The shot at the lifeboats
Torpedo boats joined in the attack
They used Napalm

What of these things indicate that the Israelis thought that the ship was American?
Do they look down on Egyptians and refuse to waste expensive Napalm on them?

BTW this is what friendly fire looks like from the receiving end. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulHpAjUPco0)

[JihadJane]

It wasn't until the Nixon admin. that Israeli-US relations became closer.

When gold was abandoned in favor of oil.

[kookbreaker]

When gold was abandoned in favor of oil.

I guess Nixon really needed to get the #66 exporter of oil on his side, then.

[Donal]

What do you mean gold was abandoned for oil?

[Doctor Evil]

From what I recall (I'll have to dig the VHS out, or look it up elsewhere) the attacking planes were unmarked and somehow mistaken for Egyptian. I think that was supposed to be the reason - false flag, to draw the US in. Tho without an explicit flag? I'll look around a bit.

Also some theories are that they wanted to destroy damning intercepts the Libertty had picked up of controversial Israeli moves. That's another possible reason.


The claim that the attacking planes were unmarked does not hold well under close scrutiny. I will explain why.

Please not that the claim begs the question. The actual claim should rather be that the Liberty crew did not see markings on the planes. That claim would not be controversial. Can we deduce anything from that? In my opinion the answer is a clear no.

How easy is it to see markings on a fighter plane. From my experience it is very hard. Fighter planes are small, and fast, and in this case would be seem on the background of the much brighter sky. In these conditions it is very hard, or nearly impossible, to see the pattern of colors on the plane. What one sees is rather the dark silhouette of the plane.

In fact, when armies train anti air personal to identify planes, looking for markings is frowned upon, as it deemed hard and unreliable. Instead, soldiers are trained to look at distinguishing features which can tell the model of the plane. As an example, here is a picture of two F16's
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HL002777.jpg?size=67&uid=%7B5BF7C5C3-3675-49AA-B653-3E308307E488%7D
The distinguishing feature in this side-view is the 90 degree break of the engine/air collector (forgot the name of this part). This could be observed when the planes will be further away and moving.

During the 1967 war the Israelis used French made war planes, while the Egyptians used soviet made Migs. This means that identifying the type of fighter would tell you to which air force it belonged. Now, assuming that some of the Liberty crew were trained to identify aircraft, they should have been able to identify them well before being able to see any markings. They could not identify the model of the planes. In any case, considering that it is very hard to see markings on fighters, it should not be surprising that the crew did not observe them.

Now lets consider the idea of erasing the markings from the viewpoint of the Israeli Air Force (IAF). This means that of the two ways of identifying their planes they would mask the least effective one. This makes no sense.

One can add one more point. The planes which attacked the Liberty did not carry the munitions suited to their mission. One pair of planes had only their guns, while the other had napalm bombs. A regular bomb would have been much more effective, and would have probably sunk the ship.

With what we know, the claim that the planes where unmarked leads us to believe that:

* The IAF planned the attack in advance

and

* Took care to erase symbols of their planes, an effort which leaves the more likely way to identify them untouched.

* Did not use the proper munitions for the mission

So this means that the IAF had to be smart and stupid at the same time. This is classical conspiracy thinking.

[roundhead]

I had a multi page thread about the Liberty on here a while back, maybe somebody can dredge it up.

A very recent feature article in the Chicago Tribune is an excellent place to begin..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story

[Doctor Evil]

I had a multi page thread about the Liberty on here a while back, maybe somebody can dredge it up.

A very recent feature article in the Chicago Tribune is an excellent place to begin..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story


The thread can be found here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117496

[fezzic]

Malkuth, thanks for the vid link - I'll watch it soon

Fezzic - you don't know anything about this case, do you? Thanks for weighing in tho.

Others who'd like to find exculpatory evidence, or anything, here is another resource, the NSA's list of evidence they admit to having, finalized in release as of 6/8/07.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/index.shtml
Have at it!

There were a couple threads on this about the USS Liberty incident. I forget if it was here (likely) or back on BAUT conspiracy theories (before the change).

I may not remember exact details since that was a while ago and memory tends to be spotty anyway :), but the issue to me is how does one prove or disprove intent? That the attack on the USS Liberty (excuse me, an unknown misidentifed as a hostile ship) was deliberate should be obvious. The chain of events that led to the attack seem to support a 'friendly' fire kind of situation.

It is the intentions behind the attack that is the controversy.

[Caustic Logic]

These crewmen went through a horrible, traumatising experience.
People have the natural tendency to see such an event as more than a stupid accident.
Just like many people don't want to hear that JFK was shot by a looney wannabe communist with a crappy job. JFK was too important to be shot by someone that unimportant.

The "evidence" against Israel?
They attacked again and again
The shot at the lifeboats
Torpedo boats joined in the attack
They used Napalm

What of these things indicate that the Israelis thought that the ship was American?
Do they look down on Egyptians and refuse to waste expensive Napalm on them?

BTW this is what friendly fire looks like from the receiving end. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulHpAjUPco0)

This cuts to the point. None of these explains the intent. Sorry, little time this afternoon, I'll be back later tonight. But first, we have the US flag - all the crew insists it was up and fully spread in the wind, until bullets tore it down and they raised their giant 'holiday colors' flag. This was shot too IIRC. The ship had it number and name painted in multiple spots in large letters. They were scoped many times prior to the attack. It's possible the info was logged and then lost as the Israelis claim.

The communications between Israeli jets and ground confirm they knew it was US, didn't want to shoot, were ordered to do so anyway and sink it totally. The only mistake, and a big one, was they didn't. (see the Chicago tribune piece Roundhead linked to)

I'm still new to the subject, butso far it looks like the main clue is that the ships radio frequencies were being jammed. Each country uses theeir own frequency - if they thought it was an Egyptian ship, they would not have jammed US frequencies. Check the statements of Adm. Moorer at about 9:00 in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJBI-vYIA&feature=related

That and everyone American who knew the most facts felt there was no way it was accident. As for the trauma causing all the crew to think this... really, folks? Is it more comforting to insist an accident was intentional, that a 'trusted ally' would try to kill you is more comforting than a blunder?

[Doctor Evil]

The communications between Israeli jets and ground confirm they knew it was US, didn't want to shoot, were ordered to do so anyway and sink it totally. The only mistake, and a big one, was they didn't. (see the Chicago tribune piece Roundhead linked to)?

There is no evidence that this communication ever existed. I suggest reading the thread I have linked above. This have been discussed there extensively, and I do not feel like repeating this here.

[Doctor Evil]

There is no evidence that this communication ever existed. I suggest reading the thread I have linked above. This have been discussed there extensively, and I do not feel like repeating this here.

To clarify, I mean good, solid evidence. Again, read the discussion in the previous thread.

[kookbreaker]

This cuts to the point. None of these explains the intent. Sorry, little time this afternoon, I'll be back later tonight. But first, we have the US flag - all the crew insists it was up and fully spread in the wind, until bullets tore it down and they raised their giant 'holiday colors' flag. This was shot too IIRC. The ship had it number and name painted in multiple spots in large letters. They were scoped many times prior to the attack. It's possible the info was logged and then lost as the Israelis claim.


This makes several assumptions about the ease of identification. The weather conditons and speed of the Liberty don't really point to a 'fully spread' flag. Furthermore, they are hardly fullproof methods of letting the world know what you are. I would point you to the HMS Sheffield incident, which had far better conditions than the Israeli jets. Yet they still mistook it for the 6 times larger Bismark.



The communications between Israeli jets and ground confirm they knew it was US, didn't want to shoot, were ordered to do so anyway and sink it totally. The only mistake, and a big one, was they didn't. (see the Chicago tribune piece Roundhead linked to)


Sorry, but no. Read what those sources are and you will see they aren't very good.



I'm still new to the subject, butso far it looks like the main clue is that the ships radio frequencies were being jammed. Each country uses theeir own frequency - if they thought it was an Egyptian ship, they would not have jammed US frequencies. Check the statements of Adm. Moorer at about 9:00 in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJBI-vYIA&feature=related


Neither the jets nor the torpedo boats had the gear to jam. It was most likely an error by the radioman.


That and everyone American who knew the most facts felt there was no way it was accident.


Wrong.


As for the trauma causing all the crew to think this... really, folks? Is it more comforting to insist an accident was intentional, that a 'trusted ally' would try to kill you is more comforting than a blunder?

Tell it to the Canadian Light Infantry.

[roundhead]

Just the fact that the inquiry was held hardly more than a week after the incident(when the Navy lawyers said it would take 6 months to get to the bottom of all the evidence should tell you all you need to know.
That and the fact those same lawyers wanted to go to Israel and get information and take testimony and were flatly turned down by none other than McCains dad doesnt paint a pretty picture either.

When you have loyal US military personel clammoring to be heard in court(and most all were not heard) a rushed court of inquiry, the ranking Admiral in the Navy who reviewed the case refusing to sign off on it(Staring)it stinks to high heaven.
Makes you wonder why anybody would serve when they see how these people were treated.

[kookbreaker]

Just the fact that the inquiry was held hardly more than a week after the incident(when the Navy lawyers said it would take 6 months to get to the bottom of all the evidence should tell you all you need to know.


Actually, it doesn't say anything about Isreal's intent.


That and the fact those same lawyers wanted to go to Israel and get information and take testimony and were flatly turned down by none other than McCains dad doesnt paint a pretty picture either.

When you have loyal US military personel clammoring to be heard in court(and most all were not heard) a rushed court of inquiry, the ranking Admiral in the Navy who reviewed the case refusing to sign off on it(Staring)it stinks to high heaven.
Makes you wonder why anybody would serve when they see how these people were treated.

Then I wonder why Admiral Moorer, CNO at the time, signed off on such a massive miscarriage injustice, only to twofacedly say something else later on?

Furthermore, there was more than the one investigation.

[roundhead]

Actually, it doesn't say anything about Isreal's intent.



Then I wonder why Admiral Moorer, CNO at the time, signed off on such a massive miscarriage injustice, only to twofacedly say something else later on?

Furthermore, there was more than the one investigation.

None of those sailors on the ship(who werent allowed to testify at the inquiry a WEEK after the incident), were EVER allowed to come forward in any kind of court.

How about addressing the 1 WEEK leadtime, when counsel needed 6 months, and not allowing them to go to Israel to get testimony, against the NAVY lawyers wishes??


BTW, Moorer wasnt CNO until 3 years after the event.So he wouldnt have "signed off" on it, get your facts straight


Here is what he said about it..........


From the Jan. 16, 2004, edition of the Stars and Stripes

--------------------------------------------------------

A FAIR PROBE WOULD ATTACK LIBERTY MISINFORMATION
by Thomas Moorer
While State Department officials and historians converge on Washington this week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups.

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship -- the USS Liberty -- killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.

U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled -- not once, but twice -- through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.

To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel's attack on this American ship. No official investigation of the attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members.

A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel's attack was "a case of mistaken identity."

Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include:


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.
What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the CIA and the military intelligence services.

The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship.

These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense.

Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government.

The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.


---
Adm. Thomas Moorer was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974 and once was 7th Fleet commander. He is joined in the Independent Commission of Inquiry by Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, former judge advocate general of the Navy; and Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Gen. Ray Davis, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, was a member of the commission at the time of his death in September. For complete findings and the sworn affidavit of Capt. Ward Boston, go to www.ussliberty.org





Return to the opening page

[roundhead]

I like how Govt apologists/slurpers like Kookbreaker have no problem swallowing whole military brass like Myers when he says we are "looking outward" but when brass like Staring,Moorer and others(who stick up for their own men at possible risk to their careers)...liars

Guys like you honestly make me sick to my belly, and want to heave........

[Caustic Logic]

There is no evidence that this communication ever existed. I suggest reading the thread I have linked above. This have been discussed there extensively, and I do not feel like repeating this here.

I'll check your link later. The Tribune article cites Many people in the US military and diplomats as well, who recall - or say they do - seeing transcripts of these communications, translated. The NSA says they failed to capture the moments of the attack altogether.This interception would be the source of such transcripts, and no one has the tapes to prove the stories wrong. Some insist Tapes are missing. The Jerusalem Post diid a piece where the author said there was no such communication, based on their tapes, but admitted the tapes had blank spots that seem to correspond with the attack time.

So no proof either way, just a bunch of blank space where there should be. That's evidence, if not proof. So your statement is wrong.

ETA: Then I saw your follow-up post.

[Caustic Logic]

The claim that the attacking planes were unmarked does not hold well under close scrutiny.
So i have a little time but not enough for full response. True that may be wrong - and the lack of markings would be unnecessary if the CT is true - they intended no survivors, so who cares if they see the star (as one Jewish sailor reportedly did and cried). This part might be wrong.


I may not remember exact details since that was a while ago and memory tends to be spotty anyway :), but the issue to me is how does one prove or disprove intent?

Apparently it's difficult to impossible to prove it 100%. Therefore it belongs in the CT rather than CF category, and here we are.

Actually, it doesn't say anything about Isreal's intent.
Not directly, no, but it indicates an aversion to finding out what happened. I read in the Tribune piece [p 7] that
The court's charge was narrow: to determine whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack. McCain gave Kidd's investigators a week to complete the job.
A week actually sounds pretty fair for such an investigation. No problem here, right?

Then I wonder why Admiral Moorer, CNO at the time, signed off on such a massive miscarriage injustice, only to twofacedly say something else later on?
I'm not sure if you or Roundhead is correct here, but "at the time" and yeras later are two very different times - witness the silence then compaeed to anyone who can talking decades later... why should Moorer be any different?

Furthermore, there was more than the one investigation.
That may be. What did the others examine and find?

[kookbreaker]

Not directly, no, but it indicates an aversion to finding out what happened. I read in the Tribune piece [p 7] that


Here roundhead is saying that it was 'all you need to know'. Doesn't seem to add up, does it?


A week actually sounds pretty fair for such an investigation. No problem here, right?


I'm not JAG or any other military investigator, and I don't really feel like playing second guessing games.


I'm not sure if you or Roundhead is correct here, but "at the time" and yeras later are two very different times - witness the silence then compaeed to anyone who can talking decades later... why should Moorer be any different?


Because its not as if the claims that it was a deliberate attack was something new that has come up in the past few years. From the first weeks some of the crew were complaining it was deliberate. The National Review had an article about the crew's complaints. Yet Moorer signed off on the Navy's final findings of fact on the Liberty. It was under his watch. Given that the man was something of a crank while he was CNO, his later CT rantings, and I find that rather odd thing to do.


That may be. What did the others examine and find?
[/QUOTE]

Here:

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

[kookbreaker]

I like how Govt apologists/slurpers like Kookbreaker have no problem swallowing whole military brass like Myers when he says we are "looking outward" but when brass like Staring,Moorer and others(who stick up for their own men at possible risk to their careers)...liars


What career? And he was such a stand up guy why did he sign off on the final findings when he was CNO?


Guys like you honestly make me sick to my belly, and want to heave........

Spare me your drama flakes. Moorer is a class A kook.

[Eddie Dane]

Of course Israel had no choice but to draw in the USA via a false flag operation.
How else were they ever going to win this war?

I mean, they weren't even able to secure air superiority on the first day until lunchtime.

At that point panic must have set in.

Then they had no choice to make a call to LBJ with the rather awkward question: "Say would you mind terribly if we wiped out a US sea crew and sank an expensive spy ship?"

LBJ then must have called a meeting with the top brass of the NSA and the Navy.
"So can you guys hold back the rescue efforts and wipe all evidence?" and they were all like "yeah, cool".

And the rest is, as they say, history.

[Caustic Logic]

I guess Nixon really needed to get the #66 exporter of oil on his side, then.
What do you mean gold was abandoned for oil?
I can't speak for J.J. and am no economics expert, but I'd reccommend looking at gold standard and 'petrodollars' and the relative time frames. Interesting correlation, perhaps... but a side note.


In fact, when armies train anti air personal to identify planes, looking for markings is frowned upon, as it deemed hard and unreliable. Instead, soldiers are trained to look at distinguishing features which can tell the model of the plane.
Yeah, this is a good point, and casts some doubt that everyone was so sure the distinctive delta-winged Mirages that looked Israeli had no markings...

Trying to play catch-up here...

One can add one more point. The planes which attacked the Liberty did not carry the munitions suited to their mission. One pair of planes had only their guns, while the other had napalm bombs. A regular bomb would have been much more effective, and would have probably sunk the ship.

With what we know, the claim that the planes where unmarked leads us to believe that:

* The IAF planned the attack in advance

and

* Took care to erase symbols of their planes, an effort which leaves the more likely way to identify them untouched.

* Did not use the proper munitions for the mission

So this means that the IAF had to be smart and stupid at the same time. This is classical conspiracy thinking.

Perhaps scratching the first poiunt and re-considering the second... there was a multi-phase operation going on against this *unknown ship* - see Loss of Liberty video, David Lewis explains what he thought was the strategy - the jets were to destroy communications ability (entennae, etc) and clear the deck to prevent repairs - small gun fire and napalm worked perfect. The torpedo boats were to do the actual sinking, and he believes the helicopters (sent to rescue the survivors, we hear) had machine guns in the doors, he thinks to finish off floating survivors, tho the plan had app. changed by then.

Now I can't vouch for that full interpretation, but the first two parts at least make sense tactically. The overall idea seemed to be prevent word getting out, at the time or later, and leave no clue to who did it.

If they had succeeded in completely erasing the ship and its crew with no word gotten out, anyone want to wager whether they'd admit to the mistake then? Or as to who would have been blamed? Food for thought, yo.

[Caustic Logic]

This makes several assumptions about the ease of identification. The weather conditons and speed of the Liberty don't really point to a 'fully spread' flag.
I'm not sure what either was at the moment, but we have these sources so far for the flag being limp - the Israelis, and your estimate of speed and wind. For the flag being prominently visible, we have avery crewmember testimony I've heard on the subject so far. The first is less troubling, so it must be true.
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."
Oops, NSA dummies are wrong too.

Furthermore, they are hardly fullproof methods of letting the world know what you are. I would point you to the HMS Sheffield incident, which had far better conditions than the Israeli jets. Yet they still mistook it for the 6 times larger Bismark.
Damn me and my insufficient knowledge of historical trivia that can be tossed out to neutralize arguments - I don't know that case, but the people who mis-id'd there sound like friggin idiots, or worse. Please go back and reconsider, based on the circumstances there, if THAT was an accident. Same with this case. The US flag usually means US, a ship with no cannons cannot be the one 'shelling the beach,' and it looks nothing like the el Quseir.
Friggin compound idiots, or worse.


The communications between Israeli jets and ground confirm they knew it was US, didn't want to shoot, were ordered to do so anyway and sink it totally. The only mistake, and a big one, was they didn't. (see the Chicago tribune piece Roundhead linked to)
Sorry, but no. Read what those sources are and you will see they aren't very good.
I looked again and I'm not seeing what's wrong with the sources. I'm open that people can make things up for attention, but did all these people make up the story?
Steve Forslund
James Gotcher
Richard Block
a retired CIA officer, who spoke on condition that he not be named discussing a clandestine informant
Dwight Porter
- Haviland Smith
- Oliver Kirby

Did the Jerusalem Post include this about the fighters phase?
In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"
What triggered this odd question if so?
Arieh O'Sullivan, the Post reporter who made the newspaper's transcript, said the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces. He said he assumed those blank spaces occurred while Israeli pilots were conducting their strafing runs and had nothing to communicate.
No problem that as they're strafing - and close enough to finally see if there's a flag - which would indeed be "something to communicate" - the audio does not exist. Clearly it was inoccuous, obviously.

Avraham Harman to Abba Eban, perhaps referring to these unexpected transcripts:
[U.S. probably has] "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."
"the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."
Odd language for an untrue claim, isn't it?
Source for all - Crewdson, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story?page=1)

Neither the jets nor the torpedo boats had the gear to jam. It was most likely an error by the radioman.
Does it have to have been the jets or boats? I'm not sure on the jamming story - Bamford writes this:
"In the communications spaces, radiomen James Halman and Joseph Ward had patched together enough equipment and broken antennas to get a distress call off to the Sixth Fleet, despite intense jamming by the Israelis.” [pp 210-211]
Can you get a signal out despite jamming?

That and everyone American who knew the most facts felt there was no way it was accident.
Wrong.
Okay, the vast majority.

As for the trauma causing all the crew to think this... really, folks? Is it more comforting to insist an accident was intentional, that a 'trusted ally' would try to kill you is more comforting than a blunder?
Tell it to the Canadian Light Infantry.
I will, next time I see them. Damn me and my insufficient knowledge of historical trivia that can be tossed out to neutralize arguments. :)

[Caustic Logic]

Here roundhead is saying that it was 'all you need to know'. Doesn't seem to add up, does it?
Not quite accurate but c'mon - at least we haven't heard about rivetless hull metal proving there was no USS Liberty... sorry, Roundhead, had to.

I'm not JAG or any other military investigator, and I don't really feel like playing second guessing games.
Me neither, but the investigation following this focusing solely on crew preparedness sounds like an OBVIOUS dodge. Why so obvious I wonder?

Because its not as if the claims that it was a deliberate attack was something new that has come up in the past few years. From the first weeks some of the crew were complaining it was deliberate. The National Review had an article about the crew's complaints. Yet Moorer signed off on the Navy's final findings of fact on the Liberty. It was under his watch. Given that the man was something of a crank while he was CNO, his later CT rantings, and I find that rather odd thing to do.

Did not know about earlier talking about it. I'm wondering where the early talkers were carreer-wise compared to Moorer. Did any of them quit the Navy, or get fired, or promoted to JCS Chairman, or anything else that might clue us in?

On Moorer's status, yes, he was CNO at the time, acc to this site (http://nationalaviation.blade6.donet.com/components/content_manager_v02/view_nahf/htdocs/menu_ps.asp?NodeID=473013656&group_ID=1134656385&Parent_ID=-1) appointed just five days before the attack. As for signing off, either he got his suspicions later, or he's a li'l beotch of a career-monger, but even these can grow some conscience as they get old and start facing death. I don't know what was going on in his head.

[/QUOTE]
Here:

http://www.thelibertyincident.com/documents.html[/QUOTE]

Another new thing to me - multiple US reports. It'll take a bit of looking to see if any were backed up w/investigations, and if so of what scope and findings.

Of course Israel had no choice but to draw in the USA via a false flag operation.
How else were they ever going to win this war?

What would have happened if the Egyptians had sunk a US ship unprovoked (or were believed to have)? Have you seriously run through the possibilities? Soviets backing the Arabs, US backing the Israelis - would the USSR follow into poss. nuclear war over their lackey's irresponsibility? Stop support instead? Would the US help in the war, as a not-needed bonus? Would they nuke Cairo? Would further wars with Egypt have been necessary?

The rest, as they say, is smug but deft sarcasm, the point of which I totally get. As soon as you're done with that and want to challenge yourself, please do think on the above.

ETA: Four in a row being enough posts, here is some more info on the frequency jamming:
whatever transmitting antennas survived that pass were disabled by the second. Nine minutes into the attack, crewmen jury-rigged a transmitter to an antenna. But the radiomen discovered that four out of five of the ship's radio frequencies, including the international distress frequency, were being jammed. Ironically, the only time Liberty could transmit was while the jets were firing their missiles. A frantic cry for help was sent to the Sixth Fleet, only 400 miles away and off Crete; despite the Israeli jamming, the Liberty's plea for assistance was received. The patchwork transmitting arrangement ceased functioning soon afterward.
source (http://www.ussliberty.org/ijic.htm)
Since this claim is incorrect, Kookbreaker, how do you answer this?

[kookbreaker]

ETA: Four in a row being enough posts, here is some more info on the frequency jamming:

source (http://www.ussliberty.org/ijic.htm)
Since this claim is incorrect, Kookbreaker, how do you answer this?

I would ask how they managed to jam the radios with what was in the area. Mirage fighters are one tactical fighter planes and jamming equipment takes full attention of a crewman and lots of equipment. The torpedo boats really couldn't do the job and they came later anyway.

There was a lot of cable damage during the attack, hence the jury rigged antenna.

Even so, IIRC the Liberty was talking to the Saratoga about 10 minutes into the attack and kept talking until the torpedo hit. Chief Smith claimed there was 'jamming' yet he reports


A. Yes sir. On that date at approximately 1400 local time, we had heard a
loud blast. I was in radio central at the time with my second class who was on
watch at the time. We immediately set Zulu and closed the porthole covers, and
as soon as we had gotten them closed, the second blast sounded and the word was
passed on the 1MC to pass over hicom that we were being attacked, to any
station. I immediately picked up the hicom transmitter which was on UIC 32,
auxiliary radio. We started to transmit with it. No station heard us, and
five minutes or so later the transmitter was reported to have blown out. I
immediately switched to a work two transmitter in the transmitter room, and we
couldn't get out on that either, so, in between attacks by this time, I had
went down to transmitter room and I found or discovered that somebody had
accidentally knocked the frequency dial one KC off. I corrected this and ran
back to the radio shack and we got hold of stations schematics on which we
passed the attack message. We did authenticate, and he authenticated correctly
because he got a roger for it, my second class.

(station schematics was the callsign for the Saratoga.

I'd say the 'jamming' is probably a combination of a radio error and damaged cables. I could be wrong but I'd need much more evidence.

[Caustic Logic]

I would ask how they managed to jam the radios with what was in the area. Mirage fighters are one tactical fighter planes and jamming equipment takes full attention of a crewman and lots of equipment. The torpedo boats really couldn't do the job and they came later anyway.

There was a lot of cable damage during the attack, hence the jury rigged antenna.

Even so, IIRC the Liberty was talking to the Saratoga about 10 minutes into the attack and kept talking until the torpedo hit. Chief Smith claimed there was 'jamming' yet he reports



(station schematics was the callsign for the Saratoga.

I'd say the 'jamming' is probably a combination of a radio error and damaged cables. I could be wrong but I'd need much more evidence.

Without carefully examining that quote (and thanks for another useful bit), I'll conceed this story could be an error just magnified by crew anger and frequent retelling. It seems borderline unncessary given the physical attack on communications, and failed anyway, if it was done.

I'd also need more evidence to decide for sure. I'm looking into it.

And then we have the other issues... the normal then giant flag, the giant letters, the non-cannon status, the non-El Quseir sttatus, the non-aggression status, all ignored somehow by multiple parties in the IDF, in an amazing string of coincidences that neither the crew nor the majority of US officials have been able to swallow, even tho it's the less troubling conclusion.

I note that my mass of points above stands mostly unanswered. Why so sheepish, everyone? Am I so wrongheaded it's not even worth debating? Or is something else motivating the silence?

[roundhead]

From th Arlington National Cemetary website, is this bio of him.

I notice reading it, that despite his obvious vocal and public outrage over the Liberty(so much that he himself convened a panel to look into it and publish findings)not a single word about the Liberty, which occured on his watch.

Pretty blatant ommision, considering his public sentiments on the isssue

Here is an excerpt from it, during that era of his life, again not a word anywhere about the Liberty.Plenty of other "xensitive issues he was involved with, but zero Liberty mention.

"He was commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet during the disputed Tonkin Gulf clash between U.S. and North Vietnamese sea forces in 1964. The crisis led Congress to authorize President Lyndon B. Johnson to take all measures to protect U.S. forces and "to prevent further aggression." This gave Johnson free rein to bomb North Vietnam and commit U.S. ground forces to the conflict in South Vietnam.

Admiral Moorer supported these measures.

From 1967 to 1970, he was Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy's top uniformed officer and its representative among the joint chiefs. As the war in Vietnam continued, he grew frustrated with the executive branch's strategy of containment of Communist forces in the North instead of total victory. He and other military officials felt the enemy would crumble only with a convincing show of force. He spent years trying to persuade officials to mine Haiphong Harbor, a supply route for Hanoi, until it was done in 1972.

Edited for Rule 4. Text copied from http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/thmoorer.htm

[Eddie Dane]

Without carefully examining that quote (and thanks for another useful bit), I'll conceed this story could be an error just magnified by crew anger and frequent retelling. It seems borderline unncessary given the physical attack on communications, and failed anyway, if it was done.

I'd also need more evidence to decide for sure. I'm looking into it.

And then we have the other issues... the normal then giant flag, the giant letters, the non-cannon status, the non-El Quseir sttatus, the non-aggression status, all ignored somehow by multiple parties in the IDF, in an amazing string of coincidences that neither the crew nor the majority of US officials have been able to swallow, even tho it's the less troubling conclusion.

I note that my mass of points above stands mostly unanswered. Why so sheepish, everyone? Am I so wrongheaded it's not even worth debating? Or is something else motivating the silence?

I can't speak for others, but my silence is caused by Occams Razor.


The conspiracy didn't have significant strategic advantages for the Israelis.
Friendly fire incidents are commonplace.
The conspiracy is unworkable, especially if you include American complicity.
The subject has been done to death in various other threads.
In these threads the conspiracy theory is blown out of the water far more effectively then the actual ship.
The evidence is o-ver-whelming that this was a friendly fire incident.
I mean REALLY overwhelming, and can be found in astonishing detail in the other, very long, threads


Those are my reasons for not getting into this any further.
I'm also not competent to get into the military details the way others can.

After reading the other threads, this is starting to feel like Groundhog day.
Without the hot chick.

[roundhead]

I can't speak for others, but my silence is caused by Occams Razor.


The conspiracy didn't have significant strategic advantages for the Israelis.
Friendly fire incidents are commonplace.
The conspiracy is unworkable, especially if you include American complicity.
The subject has been done to death in various other threads.
In these threads the conspiracy theory is blown out of the water far more effectively then the actual ship.
The evidence is o-ver-whelming that this was a friendly fire incident.
I mean REALLY overwhelming, and can be found in astonishing detail in the other, very long, threads


Those are my reasons for not getting into this any further.
I'm also not competent to get into the military details the way others can.

After reading the other threads, this is starting to feel like Groundhog day.
Without the hot chick.


It seems you are wrong.

The Liberty was in a position to find out about the Golan heights incursion by the Israeli's, something they didnt want to have us tell them not to do.

Its the old ask for forgiveness later scenario that got my fellow sailors killed.

[Caustic Logic]

I can't speak for others, but my silence is caused by Occams Razor.

Well thanks for breaking to explain it - I was getting bored.

The conspiracy didn't have significant strategic advantages for the Israelis.
Bollocks. Why would they do something wth no strategic purpose in the midst of a war? And I don't mean 'attacking an unknown Egyptian ship' or whatever BS story there's no evidence for. If they attacked a US ship intentionally, they had a reason.
Friendly fire incidents are commonplace.
Which gives us a convenient way to just hand-wave the issue away, should you happen to chose that lame-ass option.
The conspiracy is unworkable, especially if you include American complicity.
Au contraire, it almost worked, and US complicity would have helped - as it was the ship should not have been there but for another improbable chain of comm errors - I'm not sure that was accidental.
The subject has been done to death in various other threads.
In these threads the conspiracy theory is blown out of the water far more effectively then the actual ship.
Then why are you having such a hard time with this one, when it's all been done before? Oh sure, I can't beat you up, but trust me, I beat up dudes your size all the time, fought a whole army off last week... sorry, not buying it.
The evidence is o-ver-whelming that this was a friendly fire incident.
Oh, well thanks for CLEARING THAT UP, dude.
I mean REALLY overwhelming, and can be found in astonishing detail in the other, very long, threads
Seriously, I was doin' karate chops, tore of one guys arm and beat another over the head with it. Oh man, you shoulda been there, but I'm so tuckered out now I can't do anything but wave a hand at you and walk away.

Those are my reasons for not getting into this any further.
Fine by me, maybe I can provoke someone else. I'm winning here so far.

I'm also not competent to get into the military details the way others can.
Oh my gosh, are you serious? I thought you were like a General or something.

After reading the other threads, this is starting to feel like Groundhog day.
Without the hot chick.
Now I refuse to read the other threads. Does anyone else find this insanity being proclaimed victorious so far worth digging up these classic victory tactics to apply again? I'm hoping for:


Facts
Relevant opinions on the facts
Anything that addresses anything
Anything conclusive I can't show reasonable doubt over
People who are actually rational and open to changing their minds
Something funny once in a while


And to UNLoVed Rebel - I apologize for hijacking your thread. But I think this format is good for pulling out that investigation you wanted.

[Caustic Logic]

It seems you are wrong.

The Liberty was in a position to find out about the Golan heights incursion by the Israeli's, something they didnt want to have us tell them not to do.

Its the old ask for forgiveness later scenario that got my fellow sailors killed.

The Golan Heights Operation was delayed - by coincidence? - after the Liberty was discovered - until after he attack on it. By accident or design, they paused that prong until the spy ship was disabled. In the middle, they decided it was an Egyptian horse cavalry transport that wasn't even at sea at all, that was shelling the beach.

Hey, weird stuff happens. How about the case of HMS Jenkins and the battle of Thrumpittle straitts? Who could forget that one?

[Doctor Evil]

The Golan Heights Operation was delayed - by coincidence? - after the Liberty was discovered - until after he attack on it. By accident or design, they paused that prong until the spy ship was disabled. In the middle, they decided it was an Egyptian horse cavalry transport that wasn't even at sea at all, that was shelling the beach.

Hey, weird stuff happens. How about the case of HMS Jenkins and the battle of Thrumpittle straitts? Who could forget that one?


Have you looked at the map? The Golan Heights if not in the same combat arena. I mean, this is just embarrassing.

[Doctor Evil]

Perhaps scratching the first poiunt and re-considering the second... there was a multi-phase operation going on against this *unknown ship* - see Loss of Liberty video, David Lewis explains what he thought was the strategy - the jets were to destroy communications ability (entennae, etc) and clear the deck to prevent repairs - small gun fire and napalm worked perfect. The torpedo boats were to do the actual sinking, and he believes the helicopters (sent to rescue the survivors, we hear) had machine guns in the doors, he thinks to finish off floating survivors, tho the plan had app. changed by then.

Now I can't vouch for that full interpretation, but the first two parts at least make sense tactically. The overall idea seemed to be prevent word getting out, at the time or later, and leave no clue to who did it.

If they had succeeded in completely erasing the ship and its crew with no word gotten out, anyone want to wager whether they'd admit to the mistake then? Or as to who would have been blamed? Food for thought, yo.

I should not say that, as it is impolite, but I actually laughed out when I read that. Are you really suggesting that someone would plan to use the guns of Fighters to disable communications. How accurate do you think these things are? This is pure magical thinking.

[Caustic Logic]

Have you looked at the map? The Golan Heights if not in the same combat arena. I mean, this is just embarrassing.

Indeed. The Liberty was not a combat ship.

Think about that for about a minute, or until the light goes on.

I should not say that I actually laughed out loud when I read that. I really did, a solid chuckle anyway.

Are you really suggesting that someone would plan to use the guns of Fighters to disable communications. How accurate do you think these things are? This is pure magical thinking.

From what I've read, machine guns, cannons, and rockets were used in the first pass, the Deltas, larger bombs and napalm and maybe something else with the following Mysteres. Lewis says every single antenna (other than the whips I presume) was hit. Not sure if all were actually disabled.

I'm just passing on a suggestion from more credible sources.

[Doctor Evil]

Indeed. The Liberty was not a combat ship.

Think about that for about a minute, or until the light goes on.

This has nothing to do with my comment. The Liberty was hundred of miles from the Golan Heights, and could not follow what happens there. Therefore, connecting the incident to the operation against Syria make no sense. I would like to believe that you just did not look at the map, before making the claim.


From what I've read, machine guns, cannons, and rockets were used in the first pass, the Deltas, larger bombs and napalm and maybe something else with the following Mysteres. Lewis says every single antenna (other than the whips I presume) was hit. Not sure if all were actually disabled.

I'm just passing on a suggestion from more credible sources.


The mirages used Rockets and cannons. The Super-Mysteres indeed used napalm. This is not under argument. (BTW, fighters do not have machine guns.) While the antennas were indeed hit in the first pass, both the rockets and guns are not accurate enough. No one would plan on using these to hit the antenna.

BTW, the Mysters did not use regular bombs. If such bombs would have been used the Liberty would have been likely to sink.

[Doctor Evil]

The torpedo boats were to do the actual sinking, and he believes the helicopters (sent to rescue the survivors, we hear) had machine guns in the doors, he thinks to finish off floating survivors, tho the plan had app. changed by then.


Nice way to beg the question. You do not need to hear, or assume anything. You have linked earlier in this thread to the NSA documents. These include transcripts between the Helicopters and their control tower. From those transcripts (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml):

(I have not copied unrelated information, such as the pilot confirming orders.)

Pay ATTN: there was a ship there ... A warship which we attacked. People jump into the water from it. Try to pull them out.later:

Pay ATTN: The ship has now been identified as an Egyptian ship. You are returning home.Later:

Pay ATTN: Continue for the present on heading 250 from Ashdod. You are going to the ship after all.
Pay ATTN: you are going to the ship after all. You will try to pull poeple out of the water.

(Pilot- ) RGR ok

For your information, it is apparently an Arab ship. Take people to El ArishAt this point its clear that the Israelis think the ship is Egyptian. Only a few minutes later, presumably to new information from the Israeli navy, the picture changes. From the second transcript:

As soon as you begin picking up men, find out from the first man you pick up what his nationality is, and report it to us right away. It is important that (we) know.Then pilots are asked to check if ship has American flag. Again, I suspect due to the fact that the Torpedo ships have identified it.

So these not only contradict your claim (that the Helicopters were told to shot survivors), they actually show that the ship was thought to be Egyptian.

[Caustic Logic]

This has nothing to do with my comment. The Liberty was hundred of miles from the Golan Heights, and could not follow what happens there. Therefore, connecting the incident to the operation against Syria make no sense. I would like to believe that you just did not look at the map, before making the claim.

I guess I jumped to a conclusion there about what you meant. I'm not sure of the ship's listening range, but if they couldn't hear Syria, they might hear Tel Aviv talking to forces there. The Isrealis maybe didn't know the range either and decided to play it safe. Or the delay could be a coincidence, that's possible of course. There were a ton of them that day.

The mirages used Rockets and cannons. The Super-Mysteres indeed used napalm. This is not under argument. (BTW, fighters do not have machine guns.)

The word strafing is used, which makes me think of machine guns - what cannons? Maybe gatling guns, machine gun cannon things, I'm not toally clear, but the effect of the attack in sequences was
strafing clears deck and kills some crew
rockets do structural damage, notably to antenna which are everywhere
napalm also clears the deck and perhaps drives people below deck
the torpedos were meant to sink it - but all but one missed.
The helicopters were sent to *help out* anyone floating.

While the antennas were indeed hit in the first pass, <snip> No one would plan on using these to hit the antenna.
In retrospect then they could have planned on this, since it worked. Those darn Israelis, never thinking ahead like that. So they didn't plan to take out all antennae, just did so by coincidence, then?

BTW, the Mysters did not use regular bombs. If such bombs would have been used the Liberty would have been likely to sink.
'It would be a Mitzvah if we had iron bombs,' the pilots said. Then they'd get the credit for the sinking, rather than the Navy. I doubt anyone was ever intended to get any public credit.

[Doctor Evil]

'It would be a Mitzvah if we had iron bombs,' the pilots said. Then they'd get the credit for the sinking, rather than the Navy. I doubt anyone was ever intended to get any public credit.

Evidence? And it better be good.

[fezzic]

Strafing damages the target, inflicts casualties, and is just additional damage that the jet can inflict on the target. I would defer to any real pilots but think that it makes them feel better -- like they are doing something to the target.

The jets involved probably carried 30mm cannon which fire explosive projectiles. There is a tradeoff involved -- more lead on target say using 50 cal MGs or 20mm gatlings, or doing more damage when you hit using 30mm cannons. The effect on impact of a 30mm cannon shell is likely to be rather significant (but I take it not huge area) since it is an explosive projectile so the idea that a single cannon shell taking out several closely spaced (an assumption I know) antennas is not unreasonable.

According to the MTB log (translated log (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/israellogs.html), www.thelibertyincident.com (http://www.thelibertyincident.com)), the sequence of events was something like:

-MTBs ordered to locate some vessel that [allegedly?] shelled Israeli forces.

-MTBs find unknown (Liberty) on radar and jet scrambled to attack which they do.

-Jets attack and report non-Arabic lettering and HQ tells the MTBs to check it out.

-MTBs try contacting unknown (Liberty) and get a testy "identify yourself" response.

-Gunflashes from unknown is presumed to mean the MTBs are being fired upon.

-MTBs identify unknown as an Egyptian supply ship and so with the identify apparently (but as we know erroneously) made, they make torpedo attack.

-MTBs see lettering on stern and report the ship might be Russian. They are told to make a close identification of vessel and helicopters were dispatched.

-MTBs identify ship as US (USS Liberty).

At this point, the effort changes to providing assistance if needed (not that the crew on USS Liberty was in any mood to accept Israeli help after what just happened).

Friendly fire type incident seems to fit the bill. Obviously, now, the Israeli should have had the MTBs confirm the target identity before the jets went in, but they apparently had trouble catching up to the Liberty or thought they did (this was not in the log), and didn't want a hostile ship to get away. But if everyone was absolutely sure of the identity of the target they are about to shoot at, the number of friendly fire incidents would go way down.

[UNLoVedRebel]

FYI, I haven't abandoned this thread. I'm currently in lurk mode. :camouflag

[Caustic Logic]

Nice way to beg the question. You do not need to hear, or assume anything. You have linked earlier in this thread to the NSA documents. These include transcripts between the Helicopters and their control tower.

Facts! :cool: Alright.. I'll need to look closer at the timeline here - from what I recall, these NSA recordings were all after the attack, meaning the orders may have changed by then. But that was supp. based on divining US identity, so the continued reference to Egyptian status is odd. It would be lazy to simply presume this is what they truly thought. All we know is controllers were saying that, and the NSA was then able to release these tapes rather than destroy them, as they did the tapes of the fighter attack.

ETA: Do you dibelieve the accounts of life rafts, in water or in rack, being machine gunned? (mostly by the MTBs, survivors say, and one raft was picked up and taken by them, as souvenir). If true, doesn't square too well with a rescue mission. Maybe they wanted to do the pick up, rather than letting them row away, so they could finally identify these pesky buggers?

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic
'It would be a Mitzvah if we had iron bombs,' the pilots said. Then they'd get the credit for the sinking, rather than the Navy. I doubt anyone was ever intended to get any public credit.
Evidence? And it better be good.

Not sure which part you're unsure of, but this is what I've got
...the flight leader radioed to his headquarters. "It would be a mitzvah [blessing] if we can get a flight with iron bombs," he said. "Otherwise, the Navy's going to get here and they're going to do the shooting." [Bamford, p 214, no direct citation no. attached]
That they wanted credit over Navy is a guess of mine [me, JREF forum, earlier today].
The guess about no intended credit was an opinion of mine as well, since it was all to be blamed on someone else, until it became clear the ship and its crew could not be erased [ibid].

Fezzic: Thanks for the thoughts, of some value I'm sure. What would be the usual purpose for using napalm in a ship attack? That part confuses me... back with torpedo boat thoughts...

[Caustic Logic]

FYI, I haven't abandoned this thread. I'm currently in lurk mode. :camouflag
Word. I hope there are some others.
Feel free to jump in, any one.


According to the MTB log (translated log (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/israellogs.html), www.thelibertyincident.com (http://www.thelibertyincident.com)), the sequence of events was something like:

-MTBs ordered to locate some vessel that [allegedly?] shelled Israeli forces.

Yes - and is there anything on the Liberty capable of "shelling" a beach 13 miles distant? Error. Another screw-upp of the suddenly incompetent IDF.

-MTBs find unknown (Liberty) on radar and jet scrambled to attack which they do.

-Jets attack and report non-Arabic lettering and HQ tells the MTBs to check it out.

-MTBs try contacting unknown (Liberty) and get a testy "identify yourself" response.

Shouldn't be surprising, given they were offensive torpedo boats, with capability of sinking the ship 4 times over, in attack mode, and the ship already looked like swiss cheese.

-Gunflashes from unknown is presumed to mean the MTBs are being fired upon.

Yes, in fact it seems they didn't start out in attack mode when they got there - from Capt. McGonagle's testimony showing the Liberty fired first:
Before the torpedo attack, a holiday size Ensign was hoisted. [...] at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israli (sic) flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames. At this time, I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire.
http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp
signaling does add a wrinkle to the attack and sink story. The Liberty firing first went like this, again McGonagle.
The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boats before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do. Instantly, on machine gun 51 opening fire machine gun 53 began firing at the center boat. [...gets the shooting stopped...] As far as the torpedo boats were concerned, I am sure that they felt they were under fire from the USS LIBERTY. At this time they opened fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds one torpedo was noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards.

I'm not sure if it was the first or one of the later torpedos that killed most of the people on board. Can we all agree this was, at least, a tragically overblown response? They were close enough to try and signal, close enough the Americans could see THEIR flag, had heard the lettering was non-Arabic, and decided it was the El Quseir, already strafed, rocketed, bombed, napalmed... if they were there to ascertain, a little jittery machine gun fire should have triggered a calm 'let's pull back until they've settled down.' Insteead they decide they must SINK the ship. And allegedly destroy life rafts.

-MTBs identify unknown as an Egyptian supply ship and so with the identify apparently (but as we know erroneously) made, they make torpedo attack.

-MTBs see lettering on stern and report the ship might be Russian. They are told to make a close identification of vessel and helicopters were dispatched.

-MTBs identify ship as US (USS Liberty).

Oops! Wrong order. Like the Keystone Kops, but not... quite... so funny. More sad really.

At this point, the effort changes to providing assistance if needed (not that the crew on USS Liberty was in any mood to accept Israeli help after what just happened).

Friendly fire type incident seems to fit the bill.

They had a hack of a time getting the rapport and trust going on again...

Obviously, now, the Israeli should have had the MTBs confirm the target identity before the jets went in,
Or at least before they themselves attempted to sink it.

but they apparently had trouble catching up to the Liberty or thought they did (this was not in the log), and didn't want a hostile ship to get away.
True, it was already 13 miles from shore of israeli-controlled area, in a flash could be outta aircraft range altogether, must act swiftly, before thinking!

But if everyone was absolutely sure of the identity of the target they are about to shoot at, the number of friendly fire incidents would go way down.

My opinion? If they were unsure what they were shooting at, they'd have paused to figure it out.

[Doctor Evil]

Facts! :cool: Alright.. I'll need to look closer at the timeline here - from what I recall, these NSA recordings were all after the attack, meaning the orders may have changed by then. But that was supp. based on divining US identity, so the continued reference to Egyptian status is odd. It would be lazy to simply presume this is what they truly thought. All we know is controllers were saying that, and the NSA was then able to release these tapes rather than destroy them, as they did the tapes of the fighter attack.

ETA: Do you dibelieve the accounts of life rafts, in water or in rack, being machine gunned? (mostly by the MTBs, survivors say, and one raft was picked up and taken by them, as souvenir). If true, doesn't square too well with a rescue mission. Maybe they wanted to do the pick up, rather than letting them row away, so they could finally identify these pesky buggers?



Thats it? This is all you have to say in response to my post with the transcripts. Amazing, really amazing. Let me expand and show you what you did.

First, it is true that the communications we have were recorded after the fighters attacked the Liberty. You got that right.

However, you have claimed that, and I re quote:
... he believes the helicopters (sent to rescue the survivors, we hear) had machine guns in the doors, he thinks to finish off floating survivors, tho the plan had app. changed by then.
In response, I have demonstrated that we actually know the orders that were given to the Helicopters, since we have the transcripts of their communications with their control tower. These start before they were diverted to the ship, so there is no place to argue that their commands were changed. Here is one example from the transcripts:
Pay ATTN: there was a ship there ... A warship which we attacked. People jump into the water from it. Try to pull them out.

This is as good evidence as it gets. We know the what orders the Helicopters have received. We do not need to guess or deduce. We know!

I have demonstrated that the claim you made about the Helicopters is false, and you have just ignored that. This is actually the smaller error you made when ignoring these transcripts.

To understand the larger error, one has to consider what is at the heart of the argument. As Eddie Dane correctly pointed out, the important question is whether the Israelis knew that the ship was a US vessel, or whether they thought that the ship is Egyptian. I will repeat, the crucial question is what the Israelis knew, not what they should have known, or any other variant. Did they knew this was a US ship before attacking, or not? Many of the claims you raise have nothing to do with this question, in contrast to the transcripts I have cited.

So, how can one find what did the Israelis knew? One can ask them, but then you may not want to trust their answer. On the other hand, you can try to listen to their talk, without their knowledge, and see what they say among themselves. Then the question of lying does not come up. Do we have such material. Why, yes, the transcripts I have just cited, and you ignored.

Let us recap. The transcripts are of communications between the IAF air control, and tow Helicopters, which were sent to check the Liberty after the attack. This is the same air control which have directed the fighters to the ship not long before that. So what does the air control have to say about the identity of the ship:
Pay ATTN: The ship has now been identified as an Egyptian ship. You are returning home.
Pay ATTN: you are going to the ship after all. You will try to pull poeple out of the water.

(Pilot- ) RGR ok

For your information, it is apparently an Arab ship.



Take people to El Arish


Only later doubts regarding the ship identity come up.

As you conceded earlier, these were recorded after the attack. Moreover, these communication come from the same control room which have been in touch with the planes that attacked the Liberty not long before. They clearly show that people in that control room thought that the ship was Egyptian after the attack, which means that the IAF planes did not identify the ship as Egyptian. We know that the Israeli air controlled considered the ship to be Egyptian after the planes attacked it.

In most cases it is almost impossible to find out what someone knew, or did not knew. Here, we are lucky enough to have a piece of information which shows that. It clearly points out that this was a case of mistaken identification. You have just brushed that aside in your response to me.

[malcolmxwarrior]

I know nothing about the IR655 episode, or how exactly it's related. The Liberty I know a little more about, at least what the CT's claim, from watching the docu "dead in the Water." I have to say, from the evidence therein, it looks pretty bad for the Israelis. I don't recall Rusk in it, but Richard Helms also refused to believe the Israeli story, and others as well. It's a very convincing film.

That said, I found Stinnett's book on Pearl Harbor convincing until I looked deeper at the evidence, lately. I'd be curious to see a detailed debunking of this CT.

And, staying in a paranoid mode but looking for alternate explanations, I thought it made sense that it was actually a US false-flag op, masked as Israeli, masked as Egyptian. That sounds stupid now, I know... but the boat was not sunk. Everything else the Israelis did in that war was done right. This wasn't.

The docu said the attack was believed to be Egyptian, and triggered a nuclear response - jets with nuclear bombs were on their way to cairo until it was found the ship was still afloat, and MacNamara recalled them. That's just over-the-top enough it leaves me felling like someone's making stuff up.

So in short, I don't know.


911missinglinks is another convincing film about the liberty incident, It was a false flag operation that went awry. They wanted to blame it on egypt like they tried to do with the lavon affair, but because the crewmen were so valiant, the israelis failed. Once LBJ found out israel was responsible instead of egypt. He did a 180 and ordered the planes back while american servicemen were dying. LBJ is a huge traitor. The Israelis wanted america in the '67 war. Just like they wanted america in Iraq, and how they want America in Iran. This is old news. Old story, with a consistent whitewash/cover-up.

Why is this a conspiracy theory? Is it because you people are so naive? Why is this so hard for you people to admit? Israel intentionally attacked americans on the liberty. That is a universal truth. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. Israel is a rogue state and a rogue regime that should be destroyed a la the soviet union.

[roundhead]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm



"Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery".






I cant believe anybody would believe this was a case of mistaken identity...


And i cant believe the sham Naval Inquiry, which allowed zero sailors to state their life boats were machine gunned at close range to say that at the inqiry, or in fact mention the attackers in any way that cast a bad light on them.That is the very few who were even allowed to testify.

To this day, most of the crew has never been questioned on the record about that day, despite wanting to.

Thats a Govt that really looks out for its own, now isnt it.



Admiral Staring, the Naval lawyer in charge of overseeing the case, refused to sign off on it, that should tell you all you need to know

[malcolmxwarrior]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm



"Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery".






I cant believe anybody would believe this was a case of mistaken identity...


And i cant believe the sham Naval Inquiry, which allowed zero sailors to state their life boats were machine gunned at close range to say that at the inqir, or in fact mention the attackers in any way that cast a bad light on them.That is the very few who were even allowed to testify.

To this day, most of the crew has never been questioned on the record about that day, despite wanting to.

Thats a Govt that really looks out for its own, now isnt it?



Admiral Staring, the Naval lawyer in charge of overseeing the case, refused to sign off on it, that should tell you all you need to know

Thank you! Now let's make a thread about the Lavon affair.

Doctor evil truly lives up to his name. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an Israeli agent.

Hey Doctor Evil, tell me, is there such thing as a Palestinian people?

[malcolmxwarrior]

I can't speak for others, but my silence is caused by Occams Razor.


The conspiracy didn't have significant strategic advantages for the Israelis.
Friendly fire incidents are commonplace.
The conspiracy is unworkable, especially if you include American complicity.
The subject has been done to death in various other threads.
In these threads the conspiracy theory is blown out of the water far more effectively then the actual ship.
The evidence is o-ver-whelming that this was a friendly fire incident.
I mean REALLY overwhelming, and can be found in astonishing detail in the other, very long, threads


Those are my reasons for not getting into this any further.
I'm also not competent to get into the military details the way others can.

After reading the other threads, this is starting to feel like Groundhog day.
Without the hot chick.

You forgot the one where you are loyal to the learned elders of zion. You will defend the zionist regime to the death because you have dual loyalty.

The evidence is overwhelming that this was a deliberate attack by the zionist regime to execute a false flag operation. Just like 9/11 and just like the lavon affair. Once it was a failure, they had to do damage control and unleash the spin doctors to make sure the american goys understood that it was a case of mistaken identity. lol!

Because as you know, Even when jews lie they tell the truth. The jews have never told a lie in their whole existence.

[Caustic Logic]

Thank you! Now let's make a thread about the Lavon affair.

Doctor evil truly lives up to his name. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an Israeli agent.

Hey Doctor Evil, tell me, is there such thing as a Palestinian people?

Since I'm the one who's hijacked this thread, I'd like to offer a gentle 'cool it.' I'd like for you and me to just agree here and we're sure to disagree as soon as we go off-topic.

ETA: Like, please don't post the one after this, but too late.

Re: Good videos on the incident - if it's got 911 in the title I'm skeptical. Best I've seen is Dead in the Water - very impressively done, they interviewed everybody on both sides. Amazing. Haven't found a great link with even much of it - someone should find a good posting of it.

Roundhead - thanks for that. I heard it mentioned that a pilot spoke up but hadn't checked it out, Will do so.

[Doctor Evil]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm



"Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery".






I cant believe anybody would believe this was a case of mistaken identity...


And i cant believe the sham Naval Inquiry, which allowed zero sailors to state their life boats were machine gunned at close range to say that at the inqiry, or in fact mention the attackers in any way that cast a bad light on them.That is the very few who were even allowed to testify.

To this day, most of the crew has never been questioned on the record about that day, despite wanting to.

Thats a Govt that really looks out for its own, now isnt it.



Admiral Staring, the Naval lawyer in charge of overseeing the case, refused to sign off on it, that should tell you all you need to know

The Israeli pilot has indeed spoken up, and furthermore revealed his name. Its just that his story (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=905841) do not match your cited material.
In a forthcoming book, Brigadier General (res.) Yiftah Spector claims he was the leader of the air attack, although his partner is identified only as Y. The two were flying Mirage planes, on intercept readiness, armed with missiles and shells for dogfights. Thus, in the absence of bombs, the "Liberty" was not sunk, only damaged.

"Both of us had sharp eyes," Spector writes. They looked for flags on the ship, which looked like a military vessel, but in vain. "If you are certain that it is a military ship, you are authorized to attack," the controller said. Spector still hesitated, and transmitted, with a minor error, letters and a number that were painted on the ship's flank. The ship was identified, the controller updated him, as a "mobilized cargo ship" of the Egyptians, which carried out combat activity against IDF troops at El Arish and fled west. "Attack it and stop it."

[Caustic Logic]

Thats it? This is all you have to say in response to my post with the transcripts. Amazing, really amazing.
No, I mentioned I'd have to look into the timeline. Got buried at the top but I meant I will and report back. The rest was my first thots without doing so.

BTW I've gone through 2/3 and transcribing, getting the facts, not done yet. To thhe critique of the begged question:

Let me expand and show you what you did.

First, it is true that the communications we have were recorded after the fighters attacked the Liberty. You got that right.

However, you have claimed that, and I re quote:
.. he believes the helicopters (sent to rescue the survivors, we hear) had machine guns in the doors, he thinks to finish off floating survivors, tho the plan had app. changed by then.
First, I never claimed that was their mission, just that at least one crew member thought so, and it makes a certain sense as part of a multi-step plan. Jets, torpedo boats, and helicopters were all sent to identify/attack/assist/whatever - the first two attacked. Strafe and silence, sink boat, sink floaters.

That said, we have trascripts that are likely genuine

In response, I have demonstrated that we actually know the orders that were given to the Helicopters, since we have the transcripts of their communications with their control tower. These start before they were diverted to the ship, so there is no place to argue that their commands were changed.

They were talking from early in the journey about picking people up and identifying them. No talk of shooting them, from far back until they're there. It seems the people jumping reeports was maybe the MTBs seeing life rafts shoved off. Pilot sees "deflated boats" trailing behind, first thinking they were people.

Oh, and I want to clarify I've been overplaying the machine gunning life rafts aspect - it's in contention - they were damaged by fighter strafing, napalm-melted, and perhaps also hit by MTBs, and were pushed off to get rid of them -

This is as good evidence as it gets. We know the what orders the Helicopters have received. We do not need to guess or deduce. We know!

Unless these are altered, or they had secret plans they were only to be told of at the end, or that the prisoners weren't to be killed once on land again.. in general tho, yes, we know their mission.

As Eddie Dane correctly pointed out, the important question is whether the Israelis knew that the ship was a US vessel, or whether they thought that the ship is Egyptian. I will repeat, the crucial question is what the Israelis knew, not what they should have known, or any other variant.
Alright, let's get to it then. Show me what the fighter pilots knew, or the MTB crews. This Helicopter crap is getting old. Clearly THEY were not told the ships identitiy.


As you conceded earlier, these were recorded after the attack. Moreover, these communication come from the same control room which have been in touch with the planes that attacked the Liberty not long before.

I'm not sure that's true, I don't know the command HQs set up and stuff, wish I had more time...

In fact, sorry that's it for now

[Caustic Logic]

these communication come from the same control room which have been in touch with the planes that attacked the Liberty not long before.

Do you happen to know, is it the same HQ where this chain of events happened?
6 a.m. An Israeli reconnaissance plane spots an unidentified ship 70 miles west of Tel Aviv.

9 a.m. A second Israeli reconnaissance plane spots an unidentified ship 20 miles north of El-Arish. Liberty's position is plotted on a map in green, designating a "neutral ship."

10:55 a.m. A naval liaison officer at Israeli Air Force headquarters informs Israeli Naval Headquarters that the previously unidentified ship is an "audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy" named Liberty.

11 a.m. The acting chief of Israeli naval operations orders removal of Liberty from a plot table because he is no longer certain of its position.

11:30 a.m. The Israeli Navy receives an erroneous report that El-Arish is being shelled from the sea.

12:05 p.m. Three motor torpedo boats (MTBs) are ordered to proceed toward El-Arish.

The call letters were also reported (forget where I read that but credible) - GTR-5, found in Jane's Fighting Ships too be the Liberty. Removed 5 min. after ID. 30 min later the erred report of shelling, no more thought to that missing neutral ship that was IDd. Someone during thee attack (again details elude me) did see the numbers again, slightly misreported them back as CTR-5, everyone confused "what is it, Soviet?' Helicopter pilots upon arrival report
1310 “are you able to identify her nationality?”
“Negative. The writing says _TR-5.” (odd slant redacts the C or G)
1311 - Does that tell ((you))?
Negative, that doesn’t tell us anything.”

So to your question of did the Israelis know it was the Liberty, yes. Was that knowledge distributed? No. Are they dumb or were they playing dumb? (high command I mean).

[Doctor Evil]

As far as I know, this is more or less how it happened (except that the ship was marked as green at 6am and not at 9am). Namely, that a few hours after the ship was identified, she was erased from the board as there was no further information regarding its location. See this article (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html)
At 5:55 a.m. on June 8, Cmdr. Uri Meretz, a naval observer aboard an Israel Air Force (IAF) (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/iaftoc.html) reconnaissance plane, noted what he believed to be an American supply vessel, designated GTR-5, seventy miles west of the Gaza coast. At Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa, staff officers fixed the location of the ship with a red marker, indicating "unidentified," on their control board. Research in Jane's Fighting Ships, however, established the vessel's identity as "the electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the United States, the Liberty." The marker was changed to green, for "neutral." Another sighting of the ship - "gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships" - was made by an Israeli fighter aircraft at 9:00 a.m., twenty miles north of El-Arish, on the Sinai coast, which had fallen to Israeli forces the day before.18 Neither of these reports made mention of the 5-by-8-foot American flag which, according to the ship's crewmen, was flying from the Liberty's starboard halyard.


The crew would also testify later that six IAF aircraft subsequently flew over the ship, giving them ample opportunity to identify its nationality. Israel Air Force reports, however, make no further mention of the Liberty.19 There may indeed have been additional Israeli overflights, but the IAF pilots were not looking for the Liberty. Their target was Egyptian submarines, which had been spotted off the coast. At 11:00 a.m., while the hunt for Egyptian submarines was on, the officer on duty at Israel's naval headquarters, Capt. Avraham Lunz, concluded his shift. In accordance with procedures, he removed the Liberty's green marker on the grounds that it was already five hours old and no longer accurate.20


A point to keep in mind is that this was in a middle of a war, and there were plenty of higher priority targets in the area.

[Eddie Dane]

You forgot the one where you are loyal to the learned elders of zion. You will defend the zionist regime to the death because you have dual loyalty.

The evidence is overwhelming that this was a deliberate attack by the zionist regime to execute a false flag operation. Just like 9/11 and just like the lavon affair. Once it was a failure, they had to do damage control and unleash the spin doctors to make sure the american goys understood that it was a case of mistaken identity. lol!

Because as you know, Even when jews lie they tell the truth. The jews have never told a lie in their whole existence.

*Yawn* Do you really expect me to invest more time debating people with your world view?

Wouldn't it be easier if I just mailed you some lithium?

I'm not Jewish, if that helps to take the edge of the paranoia.

[fezzic]

Word. I hope there are some others.
Feel free to jump in, any one.

Yes - and is there anything on the Liberty capable of "shelling" a beach 13 miles distant? Error. Another screw-upp of the suddenly incompetent IDF.


That is actually irrelevant. The IDF didn't accuse the Liberty of shelling them. The MTB was told that "somebody" shelled IDF forces from the sea and go look for the source. Even the being shelled report could have been wrong, but the MTBs would not know that and would be in no position to ask for confirmation -- that would be HQs job.


Shouldn't be surprising, given they were offensive torpedo boats, with capability of sinking the ship 4 times over, in attack mode, and the ship already looked like swiss cheese.



Yes, in fact it seems they didn't start out in attack mode when they got there - from Capt. McGonagle's testimony showing the Liberty fired first:

http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp
signaling does add a wrinkle to the attack and sink story. The Liberty firing first went like this, again McGonagle.


I'm not sure if it was the first or one of the later torpedos that killed most of the people on board. Can we all agree this was, at least, a tragically overblown response? They were close enough to try and signal, close enough the Americans could see THEIR flag, had heard the lettering was non-Arabic, and decided it was the El Quseir, already strafed, rocketed, bombed, napalmed... if they were there to ascertain, a little jittery machine gun fire should have triggered a calm 'let's pull back until they've settled down.' Insteead they decide they must SINK the ship. And allegedly destroy life rafts.


The MTB log indicate that HQ was now not sure and wanted them to check it out. As far as the MTBs were concerned, they were not looking at the USS Liberty, a USN ship, they were looking at an unknown and trying to identify it. If Liberty, which we know would not be feeling too nice towards the IDF at this point, had sent "USS Liberty, who the heck are you SOBS" instead of a "identify yourself", then the MTBs would shrug off supposed "return fire" because they would not want to fire on a USN ship, at the least they would make more efforts to identify the ship and its flag. But since they didn't know that and one of the MTBs had identified it as that Egyptian ship (which the Div commander thought was reasonable) they responded to the gunfire they received from the hostile ship and did what anybody without specific orders to the contrary would do -- try to sink it.



Oops! Wrong order. Like the Keystone Kops, but not... quite... so funny. More sad really.


They had a hack of a time getting the rapport and trust going on again...


Or at least before they themselves attempted to sink it.


True, but things seem to happen like that in war.



True, it was already 13 miles from shore of israeli-controlled area, in a flash could be outta aircraft range altogether, must act swiftly, before thinking!



Leaves out the fact that letting the unknown get away means that additional resources would have to be diverted from the warfighting effort to locate the unknown once again. I would think the IDF would be pleased that the MTB commander "allowed" the suspected hostile to get away and force them to use additional resources to find it. Of course, that would probably have prevented the incident given the actual situation, but he would have no way to know it at the time.


My opinion? If they were unsure what they were shooting at, they'd have paused to figure it out.

Initially they were not unsure of what they were shooting at. There could have been some glimmerings of doubt but obviously not enough -- especially since the MTBs didn't know Liberty was in the area (nobody warned them of that). When the jets reported non-arabic lettering, now there was some doubt which is why the MTBs were told to identify the unknown.

The ship replies but does not identify itself and "seems" to fire on the MTBs. Since the MTBs didn't approach guns blazing and were (to their mind) attempting to establish contact, the incoming fire from an unknown would mark it as hostile, which they then tried to sink. It can't be established that the crews saw the US markings and continued the attack. Finally they apparently did see the flag and realized that the hostile might actually be (or was) a "friendly" ship so they stopped.

IOW, when the identity issue arose, they tried to identify the ship and seemingly got fired on. I would think that the issue of identity (it might be nice to specifically identify what you are shooting at) was settled at that point until more information was discovered or observed that invalidated that conclusion.

[Caustic Logic]

The Israeli pilot has indeed spoken up, and furthermore revealed his name. Its just that his story (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=905841) do not match your cited material.

That story confirms the misidentification - it doesn't specify but CTR-5 was reported, remarkably similar to the GTR-5 once known to be in the area. This story is insane - I'm not saying it isn''t true, but jeez... CTR-5 means re-fitted el Queseir? error, it was an Israeli ship ... I man a French ship... I man, man we're so confused, who knows what we just ordered you to do. I feel for the guy.

[Caustic Logic]

At 11:00 a.m., while the hunt for Egyptian submarines was on, the officer on duty at Israel's naval headquarters, Capt. Avraham Lunz, concluded his shift. In accordance with procedures, he removed the Liberty's green marker on the grounds that it was already five hours old and no longer accurate.20
A point to keep in mind is that this was in a middle of a war, and there were plenty of higher priority targets in the area.

If war = fog, there would be plenty I suppose. Your source said the info on the Liberty's ID and location was five hours old, mine said five minutes (It was the Tribune piece BTW). That's a major discrepancy. Add'l overflights "may have" happened? They'd confirm the ship and keep it on the board. Apparently these flights did not happen, and the crew is lying. Because you don't take a ship off the board, clear it from the command center's mind as it were, while it's still there. That could lead to confusion!

[Doctor Evil]

The argument made in the article I linked to is that its likely that there were more flights that day, but they were not looking for the Liberty, but for submarines, and, as result, even if they noticed the ship, they did not report back.

Anyway, this is not something that one can check. Its just a possible explanation for the presence of other flights and the absence of recorded reports.

[Caustic Logic]

is there anything on the Liberty capable of "shelling" a beach 13 miles distant?
That is actually irrelevant. The IDF didn't accuse the Liberty of shelling them. The MTB was told that "somebody" shelled IDF forces from the sea and go look for the source. Even the being shelled report could have been wrong, but the MTBs would not know that and would be in no position to ask for confirmation -- that would be HQs job.

They were sent for the source of the shelling and sunk the liberty. Er, listed it. It had no cannons and so could not be the source. So what screwed up here?


The MTB log indicate that HQ was now not sure and wanted them to check it out. As far as the MTBs were concerned, they were not looking at the USS Liberty, a USN ship, they were looking at an unknown and trying to identify it. If Liberty, which we know would not be feeling too nice towards the IDF at this point, had sent "USS Liberty, who the heck are you SOBS" instead of a "identify yourself", then the MTBs would shrug off supposed "return fire" because they would not want to fire on a USN ship
Can only non-Americans flash "identify yourself"? What language of code was this flashing done in? Arabic? Hebrew? Russian? Does the log specify? McGonagle says the boats were signing back in English the whole time, before the shooting and after.

at the least they would make more efforts to identify the ship and its flag. But since they didn't know that and one of the MTBs had identified it as that Egyptian ship (which the Div commander thought was reasonable) they responded to the gunfire they received from the hostile ship and did what anybody without specific orders to the contrary would do -- try to sink it.

I wouldn't try to sink it. I am mystified that if they really tried, they failed so bad. I forget if it was 4 or 5 more torpedos said to miss. The distance was not great - close enough to see the small Israeli flag on the MTBs, for the MTBs to see life rafts pushed over.

I'll need to study these logs, a little down the road.

The ship replies but does not identify itself and "seems" to fire on the MTBs.
Apparently did so.

It can't be established that the crews saw the US markings and continued the attack.
Why would it be able to be established? What could establish that? How can you ever know waht someone else truly knows, without some presumption of what they should know? Multiple waves of attack all only identifying the ship after attacking it, all the necessary info at HQ, sitting there not shared...

If no other reasons to wonder, all this could be seen as a clusterflock of blunders, but given the nature of the war, the nature of the ship, the oddity of its placement, the incoherency of offered explanations, plus the sheer scale in systemic imcompetence necessary and I just can't see how more people aren't at least a bit troubled about it.

Oh no, Occam's razor says the explanation that upsets my stomach the least is the logical conclusion!

[Caustic Logic]

I'm in research mode at the moment, plus volunteered for a graphics project again. If I'm wrong on all this, I'm going to try and see that and get sorted out. Thanks everyone for their help. I'm surprised no one else has said anything all night, considering what a jerk I've been.

[roundhead]

Regarding the sham of a Naval Inquiry that was held...........

http://www.ussliberty.org/staringhilllettertosecnav.htm

Our first reason for addressing you with respect to that letter is in the nature of a fervent thank you. In the Department's letter to the Congressman is the statement, for the record, that "[the] Court of Inquiry [ordered by Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe] was the only United States Government investigation into the attack." (Emphasis supplied.) We are most grateful to the Department of the Navy for this official confirmation of a fact that the USS LIBERTY survivors, and others in their support, have maintained over all of these 38 years since the attack. During those years there have been many published assertions and claims that the attack had already been "investigated" a dozen or more times, by various Congressional or other U.S. Government officials or authorities. We deeply appreciate having that matter laid authoritatively to rest

Snip.......


The official Navy record of the proceedings of that 1967 Court of Inquiry thus reveals that the Court, pursuant to the one-week time limit imposed upon it, actually met during portions of five calendar days -- two days of its allotted time having been consumed in its travel between London and the Mediterranean. It is small wonder that the Court fell far short of fulfilling its directed mission of inquiring into "all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with" that attack


snip.............


2) The fact that, in its three days in Malta, it had access to and took testimony from only 14 of the 260 surviving members of LIBERTY'S complement -- many of her 172 wounded crewmen, obviously including many who had been at the heart of the action, having already been medevaced to other U.S. Navy vessels and shoreside facilities for medical attention. (Never thereafter were these critically important eyewitnesses officially questioned concerning their observations of or experiences during the attack.)

(3) Some of the few crewmen whose testimony was in fact recorded included in their sworn testimony factual observations concerning the attack which were eliminated by the Court from its written record or were otherwise subsequently redacted from the Court's record as it is now officially held and acknowledged by the Government;

(4) Some of the LIBERTY crewmen who did have an opportunity to testify before the Court attempted to respond in full, or to include in or add to their accounts factual observations which would have been clearly relevant to the "pertinent facts and circumstances . . . connected with the armed attack" that the Court had been charged with eliciting -- but were stopped and expressly forbidden by the Court to testify further in those areas;


snip......


5) The President of the Court and the Court's appointed Counsel, toward the conclusion of the last day of their proceedings at Malta on 15 June 1967, discussed the perceived advisability of the Court's proceeding to Israel in an attempt to get relevant evidence from Israeli sources; the President of the Court telephoned Admiral McCain, the Convening Authority, seeking an extension of the Court's deadline to permit such an investigative effort; but any such extension was denied by the Convening Authority and the President was told to "come home with what you have."


snip...........


Moving from the hasty proceedings of the Court of Inquiry to the submission and processing of its results -- on the afternoon of 17 June 1967 the record of the Court's proceedings was delivered by the Court's appointed Counsel to the senior Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps officer then on the CINCUSNAVEUR staff -- then-Captain Merlin H. Staring, JAGC, USN. In delivering the record the Court's Counsel simply told the CINCUSNAVEUR Staff Judge Advocate that Admiral McCain was sending it to him for his review. The Staff Judge Advocate thus charged with that review -- a normal and anticipated procedure whereby the Convening Authority would have available a legal opinion and recommendations concerning the Inquiry proceeding and its results -- turned immediately to his detailed examination and consideration of the record. He continued that process steadily into the early morning hours of 18 June 1967, then after a four-hour rest break resumed his review at 6:00 AM on 18 June 1967.

Early in the forenoon of 18 June the Court's Counsel, again as an emissary from the Convening Authority, reappeared and inquired of the Staff Judge Advocate concerning the status of his review and when it might be expected to be completed. The Staff Judge Advocate advised that he had by then read only about a third of the record -- that there were many clerical and typographical flaws in the physical record that should be remedied before it was formally forwarded to the high governmental authorities who undoubtedly awaited it -- that, more importantly, the reviewer had not yet been able to find, in the parts of the record that he had so far reviewed, testimony or other evidence to support some of the Court's stated findings -- and that he could not yet estimate when he could complete his review and recommendations but was continuing to devote himself solely to that task.

The Court's Counsel departed with that information, reported it to Admiral McCain and the President of the Court, Rear Admiral Kidd, then returned to the Staff Judge Advocate about 20 minutes later with the message that CINCUSNAVEUR, the Convening Authority, had directed him to come and get the Court's record from the Staff Judge Advocate and bring it back to the Convening Authority. The Staff Judge Advocate accordingly surrendered the record to the emissary exactly as he had received it; he was neither then nor later asked for any of his work or any opinions that he might have formed to that point; and he had no further contact with the Court of Inquiry or its results at any time during the remaining eight years of his active Navy career

[Caustic Logic]

Roundhead - thanks for some more info, I'm sure you've already gotten suggestions on presentation...

I did look at the previous threads tagged USS Liberty - sorry, a prolonged suffering of David Charmichael and photos of masts doesn't count as a debunk of the incident, by a long shot. That leaves this the only thread addressing it with much substance. I get the impression some folks are shocked to find their are a lot of facts involved with this... and perhaps losing track.

Allow me to go back to the fighters and their seeing the flag - anyone care to remind us how many fighters were there total just for the attack, not even the all-morning recon that was somehow totally separated from the ship. How many passes over how long? Passing over which direction(s)? No sight of the flag the whole time?

There's little doubt the flag was up, as all the crew memebered it being visible or audible flapping, at least at one point... maybe drooping, but if the jets never saw it, then the transcripts stating they did never existed, and again, these people are all wrong - can someone please find the error with one or all of these? Simple lie? Confusion? Conspiracy?
- Steve Forslund
- James Gotcher
- Richard Block
- a retired CIA officer, who spoke on condition that he not be named discussing a clandestine informant
- Dwight Porter
- Haviland Smith
- Oliver Kirby
The oft-linked Tribune piece (http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,1050179.story) has the stories explained a bit, extra info is around. One of them has supposedly been "debunked," at least, go find that.

And can anyone explain why this language was used by Israel's US ambassador? (same source)
[U.S. probably has] "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."
"the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

[roundhead]

The ships hull number alone was some 12 feet tall.


Having served in the USN, and having been at sea on a ship(not to mention our division's colateral duty was to serve as underway lookouts directly above the bridge)the hull number is visible on Navy ships a long way off.

Those fighters(the flag aside) couldnt have missed the hull number, and the "Liberty" on her stern.

Not to mention she and her sister ship were the only ships in the world at that time which carried a 16 foot in circumference electronics dish above deck, which would be impossible to miss.

The Egyptian ship "said" to have looked like her was 40% her tonnage, and wasnt sprouting antenna everywhere, and a 16 foot dish, not to mention the 12 foot tall hull number, and American flag.

If, short of a carrier, there was a more distinctive ship in the world, i dont know what it would be.

[Doctor Evil]

This is the point where you should follow the previous thread (that Roundhead started, and I linked to earlier). We discussed most of these stories at length. Some of these do not make sense, as they require that secret information would appear in places where it should not. In particular, the contribution of Gumboot is useful.

I am busy with work at the moment, and furthermore would not like to recycle what was discussed there here.

[roundhead]

This is the point where you should follow the previous thread (that Roundhead started, and I linked to earlier). We discussed most of these stories at length. Some of these do not make sense, as they require that secret information would appear in places where it should not. In particular, the contribution of Gumboot is useful.

I am busy with work at the moment, and furthermore would not like to recycle what was discussed there here.


That the Liberty was intentionally attacked, it was covered up, and its crew stifled at every turn since that day to say so in an official environment isnt debatable.

[Caustic Logic]

This is the point where you should follow the previous thread (that Roundhead started, and I linked to earlier). We discussed most of these stories at length. Some of these do not make sense, as they require that secret information would appear in places where it should not. In particular, the contribution of Gumboot is useful.

I am busy with work at the moment, and furthermore would not like to recycle what was discussed there here.

Thanks, I forgot there was that thread too - it never got tagged properly (and I'm not seeing the add tag button). Sorry Roundhead, I'm seeing it now - so far looks like you stayed on track better than Carmichael, who seems like the Nico Haupt of Liberty incident. Since I asked for some thoughts on the people who saw the transcripts and the Israelis (maybe) referred to as "proof" and got 'check that thread,' I'll do so.

[JoeyDonuts]

The ships hull number alone was some 12 feet tall.

Shipmate, you ever try and get a positive visual ID on a vessel from a cockpit with limited visibility, trucking along at 400 knots, with possible weather cover and sea state issues?

You say you served in the US Navy. Do you honestly think the USN is capable of keeping the lid on something like this? Hell, they couldn't even keep my pay straight for six years.

CID Corry Station has a cryptology museum, with a lot of research and archival info on the Liberty incident. Almost none of the stuff is open-source or available online. The crew and their families have every right to be infuriated at the Israeli government for the targeting mistake. I'm sorry, but your'e a long way off from proving the Israelis had positively identified the Liberty as a US warship and decided to fire anyway as the result of some kind of goading by elements within the US Government. Don't confuse ass-covering with conspiracy. They smell the same, but they're not.

[Caustic Logic]

The letters were about 5' high, not 12. But the weather was clear and the seas pretty calm, if I'm not mistaken. The actual range between the ship and the MTBs could be established from accounts, and a reasonable idea formed of what could be seen with the naked eye and with binoculars. They would have binoculars, wouldn't they? I'm having a hard time visualizing the letters being missed from their angle - sea level.

As to my little challenge above, just to stick to a point, the reported communications between fighters and ground control that now exist only in memory - the fighters clearly IDing the ship as American by its flag, and being ordered to attack it anyway. This app. would be based on intercepts by US surveillance jets far above, tho officially nothing of this was captured at all, and transmitted to Air Force outposts and seen the people listed above, among others. I was hoping someone be able to debunk these claims or could explain what they think, other than actually seeing these transcripts, would spur any of these people to say they did.

I'll start with an observation on one, from the Tribune

"One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service's 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.

It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty," Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. "Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to 'complete the job' and get out of there."

Sounds possibly made up. "around the same time the Liberty got off a distress call" - it's possible he recalls the time the "panic" started, and later correlated it with the reports from within the ship, but at least as likely he's correlating stuff and embellishing to make a point.

See, that wasn't too hard. I'll also check the previous thread now for existing debunks. Cheers.
ETA: Found it right away, page 2... oooh, some are second-hand sources, so it's all fake... I'll be back.

[Caustic Logic]

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).

Nowicki, 2000:
As I recall, we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis.

His proof is the audio of the attack, which he recorded, but it can't be shown unfortunately. Luckily 7 years later the NSA decided everything it recorded can be released, hoooray, vindication for Nowicki! They release "all material relative to the 08 June 1967 attack on the USS Liberty." "No communications were available [...] that might reflect the attack or reaction." All they got was "voice conversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots [...] following the attack on the Liberty."

Something's amiss here, don't you agree, Dr. Evil?

[Caustic Logic]

Why didn't you guys tell me what a good thread this was? Fuleair, I had no idea, Quicknthedead, strong argument, much respect, and an actual Liberty Survivor (we must presume anyhoo). Wow. Why is it not tagged and searchable as USS Liberty here at an educational forum? Someone should fix that. Gumboot indeed has this stuff down there as well. Again cross-quoting, (I'm bringing it back to this thread's purpose tho):

-The NSA only gained recordings of the aftermath of the attack and others are lying about NSA recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but is lying about not having recordings during the attack
or
-The NSA gained recordings of the entire attack but has since lost or disposed of the recordings during the attack.

And further:

-That Nowicki is telling the truth; the attack was accidental as he monitored from his aircraft, and others claiming to have read transcripts otherwise are lying or mistaken.
-That Nowicki is lying and either he did not monitor the actual attack, or did monitor it but it was not an accident.

That's a good summation. Then we apply logic, and for whatever reason, it seems to cut both ways. I would doubt any such recordings would be 'lost or disposed of.' There's an ace-in-the-sleeve to something like this - a "you owe us one." I'd hold onto it forever, but leave it half-uncovered once in a while. A bit funny how the 'Israel controls US' crowd rallies around this, when it might be more the opposite here - the murmur from the beltway crowd and military brass just buzzed on forever, didn't it? Here is a glimps of what this leverage would look like if it were above the surface - just imagine President Obama, for example, saying this (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001508.php).

Is it nurtured even? This response is relevant here, coming back to the other half of the OP question, about "anti-semitic propaganda." Same post, Gumboot offers

It bears comment that I find it utterly unbelievable that an intelligence course for the US army would use sensitive intelligence gathered that same year for the purposes of a classroom exercise. Anyone who has worked in intelligence can no doubt confirm how utterly absurd such a suggestion is. To then take it further and suggest that within a year of the incident the NSA had decided to use this current intelligence as an example in an instruction manual simply defies belief.

Oh, but just a glimpse tho... little ripples, all you need. Who writes the most scathing interpretation yet but the NSA's nom d'plume Bamford. (hyperbole, sry Jim). NSA ship full of possible embellishers... Moorer... Helms... Johnson's jowly grumblings...

What do you all think? Anything?

[roundhead]

Shipmate, you ever try and get a positive visual ID on a vessel from a cockpit with limited visibility, trucking along at 400 knots, with possible weather cover and sea state issues?

You say you served in the US Navy. Do you honestly think the USN is capable of keeping the lid on something like this? Hell, they couldn't even keep my pay straight for six years.

CID Corry Station has a cryptology museum, with a lot of research and archival info on the Liberty incident. Almost none of the stuff is open-source or available online. The crew and their families have every right to be infuriated at the Israeli government for the targeting mistake. I'm sorry, but your'e a long way off from proving the Israelis had positively identified the Liberty as a US warship and decided to fire anyway as the result of some kind of goading by elements within the US Government. Don't confuse ass-covering with conspiracy. They smell the same, but they're not.


They didnt "keep the lid on it" the Friggin chairman of the joint chiefs, and the naval lawyer in the courtroom and the lawyer in charge reviewing the case all went public, including many others. Not including most all of the crew.