Israel's attack on the USS Liberty... [Archive]

Checkmite

7th September 2003, 08:38 PM

It's anecdote against evidence. Swearing to hell and back that the Liberty was flying an American flag that was so big that the Israelis must've seen it, that the vessel's shape was singular, or that the aircraft made several passes before firing (and thus should've identified the ship) is all compelling anecdote until the radio tapes come through, which indicate that the pilots didn't identify the ship as American until it was severely damaged. In that case, no matter how the ship looked, or which flag it flew, or how easily the pilots should've identified it...the radio transcripts indicate they didn't. That's it - case closed. That's what application of the Method of Skepticism leads to.

Now, it's true...the atmosphere of secrecy that descended around the incident was probably conducive to suspicion, much the same way that a lot of people were justifiably suspicious about the Roswell "incident".

However, in time we've found out that the Roswell "incident" was nothing spectacular; evidence in hand indicates that the Liberty was an accident. Proponents of one side or the other can yell "coverup", but after enough evidence comes to light which fails to support the "intentional" side, the "coverup" suggestion seems to be becoming less of a theory and more of an excuse...just like with the Roswell incident.

renata

7th September 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

This is just a private 'inquiry' run by a bankruptcy court judge off his own initiative. He could well be correct in his claims, but the evidence is still contentious.

If it is true, it would have to hold the record for the longest sustained case of friendly fire known, as the attacks persisted for several hours.

Nice attempt to divert from my other thread, though.

I meant the list of inquiries linked to ssibal in the thread in my first post, in response to your comment about lack of official high level inquiries, the thread you never responded to. I see you did not check it even now, because had you done so, you would have seen several high level inquiries, not merely a "private 'inquiry' run by a bankruptcy court judge off his own initiative". Any comments on radio transcripts yet? Any comments on your mistaken assertion on lack of inquiries?

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty2.html
Formatting is a little messed up, check the link.

Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
June 10-18, 1967
The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.
CIA Report
June 13, 1967
The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report)
June 9-20, 1967
Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.
Clifford Report July 18, 1967
No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence."
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967
Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.
Senate Armed Services Committee
Feb. 1, 1968
No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.
House Appropriations Committee
April-May 1968
Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.
House Armed Services Committee
May 10, 1971
Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
1979
Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.
National Security Agency
1981
Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.
House Armed Services Committee
June 1991
Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.

ssibal

7th September 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by demon
Quote from the Miami Herald:

"In the NSA summary of incident, which fills in some blanks from the recordings themselves, apparently using other sources...."

Who did they get to fill in the blanks? Sylvia Browne? John Edward? Ariel Sharon?
There are no lengths that some people won`t go to to defend scummy Israeli/Zionazi terrorism.

Filling in the blanks...priceless!:roll:

So what are you saying, that the NSA is under the control of Israel? Get real! Are you going to reject the actual recordings because the NSA wrote a summary pieced from various sources?

EvilYeti

7th September 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
It's anecdote against evidence. Swearing to hell and back that the Liberty was flying an American flag that was so big that the Israelis must've seen it, that the vessel's shape was singular, or that the aircraft made several passes before firing (and thus should've identified the ship) is all compelling anecdote until the radio tapes come through, which indicate that the pilots didn't identify the ship as American until it was severely damaged. In that case, no matter how the ship looked, or which flag it flew, or how easily the pilots should've identified it...the radio transcripts indicate they didn't. That's it - case closed. That's what application of the Method of Skepticism leads to.

Regardless, its still an unacceptable mistake for the Israelis to make. I watched the History channel presentation and the interview with the survivors is just heartbreaking. After the Israelis shot off the first American flag, a second ceremonial flag, 4X bigger than the standard flag was raised and yet the attack continued.

Whats particularly concerning is how vicious the attack was. Israeli jets riddled the Liberty with rocket holes, then dropped napalm so those taking cover inside would be incinerated.

Even if it wasn't intentional, it was an absolutely collassal cock-up on Israel's part.

ssibal

7th September 2003, 09:40 PM

Oh, and for those that are interested you can listen to the recordings or read the transcript:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html

Checkmite

7th September 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Even if it wasn't intentional, it was an absolutely collassal cock-up on Israel's part.

Is that disputed? Israel has formally apologized for the mistake. There's not much more that can reasonably be done.

demon

7th September 2003, 10:02 PM

"So what are you saying, that the NSA is under the control of Israel? Get real! Are you going to reject the actual recordings because the NSA wrote a summary pieced from various sources?"

Maybe you need reminded that just because something is recorded doesn`t mean we throw our scepticism out of the window.
These recordings don`t prove it was an accident, if anything they support the case that it was an act of Israeli aggresion, and that position is supported by most of the those Americans directly involved in the attack.
The context in which this attack happened goes a long way to explaining WHY it happened and to conclude it was an accident becasue of these recordings seems to be based on the assumption that Israel is honest in it`s dealings with the world and most people know what a crock that idea is.

From Sunspot.net:
_________________________________________________
"But James Bamford, a Navy veteran and author of two respected books on the NSA, says the tapes actually support the case he presented in his 2001 book Body of Secrets that the attack was deliberate.

The Israeli ground controller who called the ship "Arab" and "Egyptian" may be just repeating a bogus cover story, Bamford says. At one point, he notes, the controller directs the helicopter crews to check whether the survivors speak Arabic or English.

"If they knew it was an Egyptian ship, why did they think the crew might speak English?" Bamford asks.

In addition, the recordings show that one of the helicopter pilots spotted an American flag and read the ship's identification number. If the helicopter pilot saw those identifiers, Bamford asks, why didn't the fighter pilots and torpedo boat crews?

"All this backs up what the [Liberty] crew has said and disproves the lies the Israelis have told," Bamford says.

For Liberty veterans, most of whom have long been convinced that the attack was no mistake, the new tapes seem not to be changing minds.

"It's all hogwash," says Phillip F. Tourney, who was a 20-year-old sailor aboard the Liberty and now is president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association.

During the attack, he suffered burns and shrapnel wounds that left him disabled. Despite his injuries, he worked feverishly that day to patch holes in the ship and even assisted with surgery performed atop a desk, he says.

Tourney says the tapes may show merely that Israel knew that U.S. intelligence was listening; the helicopter communications were picked up by an NSA eavesdropping plane overhead. He believes the Israelis simply made sure that their radio communications supported their cover story.

"I lost a lot of friends on that ship," Tourney says, including a buddy he had just sent to check why a shipboard phone wasn't working. "This is just going to increase the survivors' determination to get our story out."
_________________________________________________

Of course, for some the Israeli Zionazis are the chosen people and are beyond reproach; for others they are masters of manipulation, lying and special pleading...occupying other peoples land and oppressing the people there, right infront of the rest of the world tends to hone such skills.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa16jul16,0,2595145.story?coll=bal-nation-storyutil

Cleopatra

8th September 2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
I don't think it was intentional, but I also don't think that suspicion that it was intentional is beyond reason at all.

Even if suspsicion was reasonable one should expect that this conspiracy litterature would stop by the moment the radio tapes came to publicity.

I expected that you Malachi would criticize such an attitude.

What so ever, this gives me an idea for a new thread about another famous incident of defamation of Israel by the Arabs and their friends in the Media.

JamesM

8th September 2003, 05:52 AM

From the sunspot article:

"If they knew it was an Egyptian ship, why did they think the crew might speak English?" Bamford asks.

Because only after the attack by the planes, Latin characters were spotted on the hull by one of the pilots, leading them to think a mistake had been made. The air force attack was called off, the naval attack was not, due to a communications breakdown.

In addition, the recordings show that one of the helicopter pilots spotted an American flag and read the ship's identification number. If the helicopter pilot saw those identifiers, Bamford asks, why didn't the fighter pilots and torpedo boat crews?
One plane did see the markings and the Liberty was correctly identified. However, after the watch at Israeli Naval HQ changed, all that information was removed from the control board. When the Liberty was next spotted, it was incorrectly identified as an Egyptian warship. The second wave of planes called in by the navy dropped napalm on the ship, shrouding it in smoke, making identification more difficult. Subsequently, the Liberty opened fire on the torpedo boats, so they fired back. When the boats closed in, the Latin characters on the hull were spotted and the naval attack was called off.

This is the pro-cock-up theory explanation, anyway. I present it not as The Truth, but as a way of showing that Bamford's objections can be accounted for.

Malachi151

8th September 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Even if suspsicion was reasonable one should expect that this conspiracy litterature would stop by the moment the radio tapes came to publicity.

I expected that you Malachi would criticize such an attitude.

What so ever, this gives me an idea for a new thread about another famous incident of defamation of Israel by the Arabs and their friends in the Media.

And why would that be? The tapes are only from AFTER the incident too place. In addition these types of things don't require full coopration from every member of the team, they only require the actions of 1 person.

For example, the ship was idenified as an American ship, then that officer left his post and for some reasonthey apparently have bad protocol and all of that information about the ship left as well.

The next commanding officer may have been suspicious that it was an American ship but orders his men to fire anyway. Essnetially the pilots on the scene could have said they were not able to determine if the ship was American or not, so the commander said not to worry about it and just attack it regardless.

The fact is that the ship was positively identified by the Israelis as an American vessil earlier in the day, and that's a fact.

Now their claim is that , well that info got lost and then we accidently thought it was an Egyptian ship, even though there is no Egyptian ship that loosk anything like it. All that is required is that the pilots had doubt and the commander told them not to worry about the doubt, but just to attack anyway.

Furthermore think about this.

What they claim they THOUGHT is was, was a CARGO vessel.

Now, as was said, let's just ASSUME that they really thought it was an Egyptian cargo vessel.

That means they THOUGHT it was an unarmed ship, and they dropped napalm on it! They fully intended to leave no survivors on that boat and kill everyone man on board an unarmed ship!

And you ask about the Israeli military ethics? Here is a perfect example. Either way, either they intentionally attacks a ship that they suspected may be American, they intentionally attacked a ship that they knew was American, or they attacked what they thought was an unarmed cargo vessel with the intent to kill all those on board.

The claim that they continued to shoot at the ship becuase people on board fired guns is absurd as well.

The ship was immobile, and all they had to do to get away from the threat was back off. All the the firing of guns did was let them know that there were still survivors. The firing of guns was not a threat to the Israelis.

To me, no matter how to slice it, the Israelis did something horrlible beyond what they admitted to.

Either they intentionally targeted in American ship, or they attacked what they believed was an unarmed cargo ship with excessive force.

Now granted the Germans did do stuff like that too in WWI and WWII, but American forces generally do not take those kinds of actions, because American forces are generally humane. No matter how you slice it, the Israeli forces were shown to obviously not be humane.

In a similar situation I suspect that American forces would have either requested the surrender of the ship first, or simply torpedoed it, they would not have dropped napalm on the deck or continued the attack when the presence of survivors was made apparent. The intent of Americans would be to destroy the capacity of the ship, not to kill all the people on board, which was the obvious goal of the Israeli attack. The only reason there were any survoros ws because it was an advanced American military ship. Had it been an Egyptian cargo ship there would have been no survivors.

demon

8th September 2003, 07:09 AM

Make what you will of the following.
quote:

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.

Key members of the Lyndon Johnson administration have long agreed that this attack was no accident. Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack, " he insists.

Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk is equally outspoken, calling the attack deliberate in press and radio interviews. Similarly strong language comes from top leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency (some of whose personnel were among the victims), National Security Council, and from presidential advisers such as Clark Clifford, Joseph Califano and Lucius Battle.

A top-secret analysis of Israel's excuse conducted by the Department of State found Israel's story to be untrue. Yet Israel and its defenders continue to stand by their claim that the attack was a "tragic accident" in which Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport.

Despite the evidence, no U.S. administration has ever found the courage to ever found the courage to defy the Israeli lobby by publicly demanding a proper accounting from Israel.

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

DanishDynamite

8th September 2003, 07:55 AM

Malachi151:
Now granted the Germans did do stuff like that too in WWI and WWII, but American forces generally do not take those kinds of actions, because American forces are generally humane. Uhhh...the US used napalm extensively in Vietnam and the napalm-like MK-77 firebombs in Iraq.

JamesM

8th September 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by demon
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.
The pilot's name is Amnon Tavni. When Adrian Pennink was making the Thames TV documentary on the Liberty incident, he contacted Tavni, who denied making the statement. Additionally, the IDF had no record of Tavni as a pilot, or indeed in any branch of the IDF. But they probably would say that, wouldn't they?

My source for the above comes from A Jay Cristol's recent book on the subject, so I can't provide a link, I'm afraid.

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 major in question is Seth Mintz, who claimed to be in the war room with General Benni Matti. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Mintz was in the war room, and no evidence that Benni Matti even exists. Mintz states that Moshe Dayan gave the order for the attack, but Cristol shows that Dayan was not in the war room (and was out of radio contact) on the day and time in question - there are photographs taken by a Life photographer (with watches in shot) that show this.

Additionally, Mintz denied to the New York Times that he had ever said that they knew they were attacking an American ship.

Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack, " he insists.
The problem with this (and all the people listed) is that this is based merely on their personal opinion, much of it informed by the likes of James Ennes. They know no more about the subject than we do.

Checkmite

8th September 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

What they claim they THOUGHT is was, was a CARGO vessel.

Now, as was said, let's just ASSUME that they really thought it was an Egyptian cargo vessel.

That means they THOUGHT it was an unarmed ship, and they dropped napalm on it! They fully intended to leave no survivors on that boat and kill everyone man on board an unarmed ship!

Japanese cargo vessels and tankers were legitimate targets in the eyes of the U.S. Navy during WWII; the Pacific sub fleet racked up quite a few tons' worth of these ships. In the same sense, Japanese civilian steel plants and oil refineries were legitimate targets. One of the objectives of many war or combat actions is to make your job easier by depriving the enemy of the means to make war. This means cutting off oil and supplies. It also means killing as much of a ship's crew as possible, so that they can't just repair the ship and get to their target port anyway.

JamesM

8th September 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

What they claim they THOUGHT is was, was a CARGO vessel.

Now, as was said, let's just ASSUME that they really thought it was an Egyptian cargo vessel.

That means they THOUGHT it was an unarmed ship, and they dropped napalm on it!

No. According to the Israeli account (which you are free to disregard), its speed was miscalculated and as a result it was assumed to be a warship and an airstrike was called in. After the napalm was dropped, it was identified as an Egyptian naval freighter. It was not assumed to be unarmed, however, as the Liberty had already opened fire on the torpedo boats before the identification.

I've never been in a war myself, but I think that the response of the torpedo boats (to fire back) is probably understandable, given that they were in the middle of a war and under fire.

Malachi151

8th September 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

No. According to the Israeli account (which you are free to disregard), its speed was miscalculated and as a result it was assumed to be a warship and an airstrike was called in. After the napalm was dropped, it was identified as an Egyptian naval freighter. It was not assumed to be unarmed, however, as the Liberty had already opened fire on the torpedo boats before the identification.

I've never been in a war myself, but I think that the response of the torpedo boats (to fire back) is probably understandable, given that they were in the middle of a war and under fire.

The torpoedo boats could easily have simply stayed out of range of them. The boats just were going in for a closer look to see if there were survivors and access damage. They saw that people were still alive, so they decided to keep firing at the ship.

Malachi151

8th September 2003, 10:37 AM

Liberty vs Egyptian Cargo ship

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/samosamo.gif

USS Liberty:

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/COI/sample/Differences.html

1. At all times on June 8, 1967, during the fourth day of the
Arab-Israeli "Six Day War," USS Liberty, a neutral ship, remained in
international waters.

2. USS Liberty carried no offensive armament and only four .50 cal.
machine guns as a defense against boarders.

3. On the morning of June 8, 1967 USS Liberty was over flown by
Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, and POSITIVELY identified by an
Israeli pilot not just as a U.S. Navy ship, but as USS Liberty
specifically.

4. The Hague Convention on Naval Warfare prohibits attacks on
neutral ships on the high seas.

5. The government of Israel stated that they ordered ships and
aircraft to the location of USS Liberty because they had received
reports that IDF forces on the shore were being shelled from the sea.

6. The Israeli motor torpedo boats (MTBs) claimed to have detected
USS Liberty on their radar initially at a distance of approximately
28 miles. The maximum range of the MTB radar units was just 16 miles.

7. The MTBs calculated the speed of USS Liberty initially at 30
knots and then a few minutes later at 28 knots. The maximum speed of
USS Liberty was 20 knots, and the ship was at that time barely making
way at five knots.

8. The Israeli aircraft, which should have been looking for a ship
with offensive armament with sufficient range to bombard the shore 15
miles away and traveling at high speed, instead found a converted
cargo ship, with no offensive armament, and moving at approximately
five knots.

9. USS Liberty presented no obvious offensive threat, nor was she
attempting to flee the scene. Indeed, US sailors were sunbathing on
the deck.

10. Prior to the start of the attack (1358 local time), USS Liberty -
still in international waters - was never positively identified as a
hostile ship.

11. Rather than wait for the MTBs to arrive and positively ID the
ship, the aircraft launched an attack on USS Liberty.

12. The pilots of the attacking aircraft claimed that they were
unable to see the 5' by 8' red, white, and blue US flag flying
approximately 100 feet above the bridge of the ship, yet one of the
pilots stated that he saw a .50 cal machine gun, painted gray, on the
deck.

13. The Israelis claim that the aircraft finally saw a U.S. flag on
Liberty at approximately 1422 and they called off the attack.

14. At 1436, the MTBs launched a torpedo attack on USS Liberty,
launching five torpedoes, one of which hit USS Liberty amidships,
killing 25 men.

15. The MTBs continued to circle USS Liberty, firing on the ship
until at least 1510, when they claim that they saw Liberty's US flag
for the first time.

16. The Israeli attack was broken off almost immediately following
an unencrypted broadcast by USS Saratoga that she had launched
aircraft to come to the aid of Liberty.

The Israeli government has never explained why it was necessary to
attack an unthreatening ship on the high seas without waiting a few
more minutes until their surface ships arrived to positively identify
it. This was a gross violation of the laws of war. There is simply no
rational explanation for the attack having been anything other than
planned and deliberate.

Reference was made to Mr. Cristol's website www.libertyincident.com.
When visiting this site, please keep in mind that while Mr. Cristol
traveled to Israel 15 times to interview IDF personnel, he had only
brief conversations with a few USS Liberty survivors. He has claimed
to have interviewed quite a few individuals who dispute that they
were ever interviewed by Cristol. The facts alleged on Cristol's
website are often contradictory.

One of the individuals who disputes ever having been interviewed by
Cristol about the attack on USS Liberty, is Captain Ward Boston, the
JAG officer for the court of inquiry. He has recently broken his
silence on this subject. In a recent published interview, Captain
Boston contradicted Cristol's claims of comments attributed to
Admiral Isaac Kidd and stated that Kidd has opined to him that he
thought that Cristol was "an Israeli agent."

Also bear in mind Cristol's somewhat misleading biography, which
suggests that he was a combat pilot during the Korean war (he
wasn't).

This goes back to what I was saying. Its irrelevant to a point because the fact is that even if it had been an Egyptian cargo ship they STILL would have been in volation of the internationally agreed upon ruled of engagement. Thats WHY we have these rules in the first place, to PREVENT "accidents" like this.

They were at fault no matter what for doing something that was wrong.

JamesM

8th September 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

The torpoedo boats could easily have simply stayed out of range of them.
Why would they do that? They were under attack from what they thought was an enemy ship

The boats just were going in for a closer look to see if there were survivors and access damage. They saw that people were still alive, so they decided to keep firing at the ship.
Any evidence for this?

Skeptic

8th September 2003, 12:23 PM

Quote from the Miami Herald:

"In the NSA summary of incident, which fills in some blanks from the recordings themselves, apparently using other sources...."

Who did they get to fill in the blanks? Sylvia Browne? John Edward? Ariel Sharon?

So, in your view, it makes sense to believe that the NSA tapes actually "condemn" israel, despite the fact that evetrything there supports the idea that it was a mistake, because the tapes did not record EVERYTHING that happened, and since the eeeeeeevil jooooooos control the NSA, it "filled in the blanks" in the story in a way that makes the eeeeeeeeeevil joooooooos look good.

Of course, your "theory" makes SO much more sense than the much simpler claim--that (duh) the recording devices' data, as usually is the case, is not 100% complete and did not hear and/or record EVERYTHING that went on, requiring interpretation--due to the fact that some things are outside their range, or they cannot record the thoughts of those involved, or what happened when they were turned off, etc.

Virtually EVERY event caught on camera and/or recorded requires filling in the blanks. Look at your home movies: in one moment, your wife is in the frame... then she isn't... then she is again! Amazing! Of course, you will say that "she went to the kitchen". C'mon, are we really supposed to believe THAT story about how these "blanks" in her recording occured? Did you get that knowledge from Sylvia Browne? Can you prove she was NOT abducted by scummy zionist agents and replaced by a clone??? Filling in the blanks--Priceless! :roll:

You, like many others, will believe absolutely anything as long as it makes the eeeeeeeeeeeevil joooooooooooos look bad. But wait, don't tell me: you are "not an antisemite, just an anti-zionist". Sure. After all, whatever makes us think it is antisemitic to invent a nonsensical conspiracy theory out of thin air, solely in order to "convict" the jewish state of things it never did?

Skeptic

8th September 2003, 12:26 PM

Any evidence for this?

Haven't you learned anything, James? When it comes to blaming the jews, you don't need no stinkin' evidence. "I read it somewhere" or "I think" is quite sufficient proof.

ssibal

8th September 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by demon
Maybe you need reminded that just because something is recorded doesn`t mean we throw our scepticism out of the window.
These recordings don`t prove it was an accident, if anything they support the case that it was an act of Israeli aggresion, and that position is supported by most of the those Americans directly involved in the attack.

Demon, the claim is that Israel knew it was a U.S. ship and attacked it for whatever reason, this tape supports the position that the Israelis did not know it was a U.S. ship. If you are going to attack the authenticity of the tapes then you need to provide better evidence than it is a "crock idea" that "Israel is honest in it's dealings with the world" or that the "Israeli Zionazis" are "masters of manipulation, lying and special pleading."

a_unique_person

8th September 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Any evidence for this?

Haven't you learned anything, James? When it comes to blaming the jews, you don't need no stinkin' evidence. "I read it somewhere" or "I think" is quite sufficient proof.

Fortunately, James is not an ideologue like yourself. He has made several valid points in this and other threads, and is merely trying to think for himself and make up his own mind, as does Cleopatra.

I have no doubt there will be many points that we disagree upon, but I respect these two forum members. When they write something, I usually think about it. When you post, I can usually disregard it without having to waste any time on serious consideration.

ImpyTimpy

8th September 2003, 03:59 PM

I've just read through the thread and I have to say a few things here for both sides of the story.

First of all, I don't see the tapes proving or disproving anything. They're simply conversations of two pilots and their controllers. Saying the tapes clearly prove Israeli forces didn't know the ship was American is wrong, since the tapes do no such thing. All we have is two pilots talking to the ground controller. In order to know whether Israel knew or didn't know we'd have to gain access to all top level communications which happened on the day. Best we can do is say the tapes are inconclusive (there are some indications that controller may have known the ship was American and there are indications that the controller didn't know whether the ship was egyptian or not). We're not going to find out whether the act was deliberate or not by shouting at each other and presenting snippets of information labelled as "evidence".

Second of all, we're arguing over a past event, that even if it was a deliberate act, would have been done so by past administration (or people in charge). In no way does the incident reflect the current policy/feelings of Israel towards America. Last time I checked Israel and America are allies. Last time I checked Israel is a democracy.

Bottom line - it should be noted that the actions were done by past leadership, if they were deliberate they in no way reflect the attitude of current leadership.

renata

9th September 2003, 02:21 PM

Bump

AUP, have you looked at the high level inquiries yet? Have you read the transcripts yet? Have ssibal's links showing your errors in your assumptions made your change your mind on the incident?

Cleopatra

9th September 2003, 02:24 PM

Evil Renata I love you :)

Well, Unique, she is right. To the other thread you insisted on our accepting that Israel was stealing land....

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Evil Renata I love you :)

Well, Unique, she is right. To the other thread you insisted on our accepting that Israel was stealing land....

I don't recall you have accepted it.

American

9th September 2003, 04:36 PM

If it weren't a mistake, I think the nation of "Palastine" would now exist on a radioactive piece of land we turned to glass.

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 04:38 PM

I had been reading this page http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

There has NEVER been a congressional investigation. There HAS been a NAVY-controlled white-washed investigation of the crew's actions during the attack, but Israel's participation was NOT covered. Even in this, evidence was changed, and officers and crew who knew the answers were not asked the right questions and were told to shut up when they offered information. And now, in 2002, retired Navy captain Ward Boston, one of the Navy's chief legal counsels reporting to Adm. Kidd, who conducted the Navy's inquiry, now says that the Navy inquiry was a sham and a fraud and both he and Adm. Kidd knew that the attack was not an accident but deliberate

The IDF inquiry I would totally disregard. As Skeptic has pointed out, they have never found evidence of illegal activity by the IDF.

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by American
If it weren't a mistake, I think the nation of "Palastine" would now exist on a radioactive piece of land we turned to glass.

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

renata

9th September 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I had been reading this page http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

The IDF inquiry I would totally disregard. As Skeptic has pointed out, they have never found evidence of illegal activity by the IDF.

Wow...a webpage with a soundtrack. It must be true.

What about those inquiries listed in ssibals link? Do you think they never existed? Are they not congressional investigations?

Ben Shniper

9th September 2003, 09:31 PM

In the face of evidence...

Even JK has done so in the past. I think a_unique_person is just far more extreme than Jedi Knight was.

-Ben

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by renata

Wow...a webpage with a soundtrack. It must be true.

What about those inquiries listed in ssibals link? Do you think they never existed? Are they not congressional investigations?

I think the link has a different definition of what constitutes a congressional investigation to you. Either way, it appears to claim that investigations by the US were nobbled. Like I said before, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was enough to start a full blown war, and nothing even happened in that.

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
In the face of evidence...

Even JK has done so in the past. I think a_unique_person is just far more extreme than Jedi Knight was.

-Ben

Evidence? All I can remember is you disappearing when it became clear I had evidence to counter your claims. JREF used to be a cosy little club of uncritical supporters of Israel. No longer.

DialecticMaterialist

9th September 2003, 09:55 PM

One thing I don't understand is why so many liberals and Marxists have a problem with Israel. I mean aren't they a semi-socialist nation(democratic-socalist I believe)? Or in any event, way more socialistic then their Arab neighbors (who are either Monarchist or Theocratic)? It really does not make sense to me. My only thought is they oppose Israel just to oppose the conervatives and America as an end in itself.

renata

9th September 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think the link has a different definition of what constitutes a congressional investigation to you. Either way, it appears to claim that investigations by the US were nobbled. Like I said before, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was enough to start a full blown war, and nothing even happened in that.

OK, can you define congressional investigation for me please? Because I thought Senate and House investigations were Congressional investigations. How do you define them? You said there were no high level inquiries. Ssibal has links showing inquiries from, among others:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
CIA
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Armed Services Committee
House Appropriations Committee
House Armed Services Committee
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
National Security Agency
House Armed Services Committee

Most of those inquiries concluded that the attack was at worst "gross negligence" but no inquiry found premeditation. With the release of the transcripts, that seems to support the findings.

Who did you think should have conducted the high level inquiries?
How do you define "official high level inquiry"
Who "nobbled" all these investigations?
Have you read the transcripts, previously linked and quoted?
Do you agree that the Israeli pilots believe this was an Egyptian ship?
Does that change any of your prior beliefs about this incident?

You actually did not say "nothing even happened in that" You said, like I quoted you before
It is worth comparing this to the Gulf of Tonkin. An attack that never happened was enough to cause a full blown war. When a US ship is directly attacked, there is not even an official high level inquiry.

If these inquiries concluded that is was an accident or even "gross negligence", what should have happened, in your opinion?

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 10:05 PM

a_unique_person

9th September 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by renata

OK, can you define congressional investigation for me please? Because I thought Senate and House investigations were Congressional investigations. How do you define them? You said there were no high level inquiries. Ssibal has links showing inquiries from, among others:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
CIA
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Armed Services Committee
House Appropriations Committee
House Armed Services Committee
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
National Security Agency
House Armed Services Committee

Most of those inquiries concluded that the attack was at worst "gross negligence" but no inquiry found premeditation. With the release of the transcripts, that seems to support the findings.

Who did you think should have conducted the high level inquiries?
How do you define "official high level inquiry"
Who "nobbled" all these investigations?
Have you read the transcripts, previously linked and quoted?
Do you agree that the Israeli pilots believe this was an Egyptian ship?
Does that change any of your prior beliefs about this incident?

You actually did not say "nothing even happened in that" You said, like I quoted you before

If these inquiries concluded that is was an accident or even "gross negligence", what should have happened, in your opinion?

A case of my extending a claim based on poor recall, "No congressional investigation" became " No high level inquiry".

Court Martial at the least, of whoever was responsible.

I did not say I believed they were all nobbled, but the web page makes those claims. I do not think I have ever claimed it was a definite case either way, but have stated that it is a contentious issue. As demon has said, the real issue is not the pilots, but those in control of them who should be providing transcripts.

The one thing that really does distinguish this even from other cases of friendly fire is that it was a sustained attack over several hours, including the shooting of people who were helpless. Other cases of friendly fire that have been referred to have all ben attacks that were halted very quickly.

Cleopatra

10th September 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

JREF used to be a cosy little club of uncritical supporters of Israel. No longer.

:cs: :cs: :cs:

Unique. I think that you have the opportunity to do something really nice for JREF

Offer this sentence to Linda to host it to the Auctions forum.

JREF will make tones of money from people that they will die to use it as their signature!! :)

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

:cs: :cs: :cs:

Unique. I think that you have the opportunity to do something really nice for JREF

Offer this sentence to Linda to host it to the Auctions forum.

JREF will make tones of money from people that they will die to use it as their signature!! :)

It is good to see you haven't lost your faith in me yet. Thanks, Cleopatra.

Cleopatra

10th September 2003, 02:28 AM

It's good for me to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor Unique :)

crocodile deathroll

10th September 2003, 02:54 AM

In the case of the USS Liberty I will give the Israelis the benifit of the doubt. There was no malice intent, it was just a stupid millitary stuffup.
But the Israelis have not been lily white as they were the inventors of Terrorism (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/King-David-Hotel-bombing) as we know it today.

CDR

Cleopatra

10th September 2003, 03:11 AM

In fact they learned how to plug bombs by the Europeans that they were bombing their Synagogues.

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
In the case of the USS Liberty I will give the Israelis the benifit of the doubt. There was no malice intent, it was just a stupid millitary stuffup.
But the Israelis have not been lily white as they were the inventors of Terrorism (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/King-David-Hotel-bombing) as we know it today.

CDR

I don't know if you could say they invented it as we know it today. Terrorism has been around much longer than that.

Malachi151

10th September 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
One thing I don't understand is why so many liberals and Marxists have a problem with Israel. I mean aren't they a semi-socialist nation(democratic-socalist I believe)? Or in any event, way more socialistic then their Arab neighbors (who are either Monarchist or Theocratic)? It really does not make sense to me. My only thought is they oppose Israel just to oppose the conervatives and America as an end in itself.

WTF, why do people keep saying "liberals have a problem with Israel"?

I'll tell you who does NOT have a problem with Israel, and that is Christian Fundamentalists, and that si because they think that Israel is some link to their own scriptures and a part of End Times prophesy, and because of that it does not matter what the Israelis do, they will be on their side no matter what.

Who does have a problem with Israel, anyone who thinks critically. If you care about human rights and fairness and justice and you don't like conflict then you have a problem with Israel!

Yes Israel is a Social Democracy of sorts, but so what? Why should that matter? Do you think people put those types of ideologies above human life? Some people do, but any decent person does not.

Ask people on the streets, hardly anyone thinks that it is possible for there to be peace between Israel and the Arab nations. If its impossible for there to be peace, then what is the solution? If its impossible for there to be peace then doesn't it stand to reason that the world would be better off if Israel had never been formed?

I don't blame the Israelis for not wanting to give up and leave Israel, but let's face it, if they did the world would be a better place. Not that its their fault for the problem, but that's just a fact.

The only reason any of this is going on is because of religoius fanaticism in the first place, by both sides.

JamesM

10th September 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The one thing that really does distinguish this even from other cases of friendly fire is that it was a sustained attack over several hours
Can you cite evidence for this? You can find the full transcript of the US Naval Court of Inquiry here (http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt), which should presumably contain information to back up your statement (the transcript is rather long, I'm afraid).

However, to cut to the chase, the testimony of Captain McGonagle in that document contradicts your claim. He was asked by the court of enquiry to
develop in conjunction with your ships officers and through
the assistance of any other assets available, such as your
engineer's bell book, the CIC log, recollections of ships
personnel the best available story, chronological in words
and pictorial on charts and whyfors what happened.
From his account, we find that the attack starts at:

1358 SINGLE A/C SIGHTED APPROACHING SHIP FROM 135 DEG
RELATIVE 5 - 6 MILES DISTANCE, ALTITUDE APPROXIMATELY
7000 FT. A/C PASSED DOWN TRACK OF SHIP

as the next entry is:
1403 LOUD EXPLOSION - PORT SIDE AMIDSHIPS
The attack ends at:

1503 ONE MTB RETURNED TO SHIP AND SIGNALLED "DO YOU NEED
HELP" IN ENGLISH C.O. SIGNALLED "NEGATIVE"
So that's from 1358 to 1503 - 65 minutes maximum. Not 'several', is it? To be fair, the false claim about several hours is repeated across the web.

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 06:06 AM

Another view, which may explain why the incident has been shrouded in so much confusion and doubt. Israel did not want to admit it had been practicing for war a 'defensive' war of attack.

http://www.ariga.com/peacebiz/edits/liberty.htm

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 06:09 AM

From a survivor

http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2003-June/000499.html

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 06:11 AM

Claiming a pilot knew that he was attacking a ship with an American flag. When he refused, he was arrested on his return to base.

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

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

So that's from 1358 to 1503 - 65 minutes maximum. Not 'several', is it? To be fair, the false claim about several hours is repeated across the web.

The 'several hours' apparently refers to the time since the ship was first contacted by surveillance aircraft, to the attack. That is, time from first observation.

JamesM

10th September 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Claiming a pilot knew that he was attacking a ship with an American flag. When he refused, he was arrested on his return to base.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
That's the same article (and the same URL!) that demon posted earlier. I have discussed these points in a post on the first page.

JamesM

10th September 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The 'several hours' apparently refers to the time since the ship was first contacted by surveillance aircraft, to the attack. That is, time from first observation.
In which case, it wasn't a "sustained attack over several hours".

Cleon

10th September 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From a survivor

http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2003-June/000499.html

AUP, I am hardly an Israel supporter (as I said on another thread, I'm a non-Zionist Jew). But you do yourself no good, and you certainly don't represent yourself well, if you quote from Zundelsite. Ernst Zundel is a well-known Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi. While the information may be accurate, there's no way to know when it comes from someone who likes to make reality up as he goes along.

An analogy might be talking about geology and throwing in a quote from icr.org. Yeah, it might be accurate, but it's not the most reliable source in the world.

10th September 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by renata

If these inquiries concluded that is was an accident or even "gross negligence", what should have happened, in your opinion?

Well, clearly, we should have taken Isreal out.

JamesM

10th September 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From a survivor

http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2003-June/000499.html
Zundelsite?! Do you fancy quoting some of it, or finding another link, I'd rather not click on a holocaust-denial website.

Edit: I see Cleon has made the same point, rendering this post redundant. Sorry for the duplication.

Skeptic

10th September 2003, 07:11 AM

AUP, I am hardly an Israel supporter (as I said on another thread, I'm a non-Zionist Jew). But you do yourself no good, and you certainly don't represent yourself well, if you quote from Zundelsite.

Indeed so. But then again, AUP is simply showing his real colors: blame the jews no matter what... even if you have to quote a neo-nazi holocaust denier to do so. This is hardly a surprise, since AUP is quite sympathetic to the neo-nazis. They both ant to see israel destroyed and the jews killed.

By the way, Zundel also believes that UFOs are secret Nazi craft that are launched from secret bases below the earth's hollow poles; he once had a plan (which never materialized, of course) to "expose the truth" by flying to the poles in a 747 jet with a swastika painted on its tail, so that the secret operators of the base will know he's a friend.

Quite a "source" you've got there, AUP. I'd say that if you are reduced to quoting Zundel to "support" your conspiracy theory, you might as well give up and admit you were wrong.

While the information may be accurate, there's no way to know when it comes from someone who likes to make reality up as he goes along.

OF COURSE it's accurate! It BLAMES THE JEWS! How can that POSSIBLY be wrong???

renata

10th September 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

Zundelsite?! Do you fancy quoting some of it, or finding another link, I'd rather not click on a holocaust-denial website.

Edit: I see Cleon has made the same point, rendering this post redundant. Sorry for the duplication.

Hey, last year demon and AUP used Institute of Historical Review as their source that USS Liberty was attacked with premeditation.
At the time AUP argued that just because IHR was a propaganda site with holocaust denying materials it did not mean USS Liberty information from it was not correct. He refused to acknowledge that the slant of the site and other content there tainted information obtained from it. Nova Land posted some of his usual remarkably well thought out posts on the issue on page 2 of that thread, I highly recommend them now, as the issue came up again.

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

Cleopatra

10th September 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From a survivor

http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2003-June/000499.html

I just want to let you know that I saw that you posted that.

demon

10th September 2003, 10:29 AM

"Hey, last year demon and AUP used Institute of Historical Review as their source that USS Liberty was attacked with premeditation."

Not true but why am I not suprised?.
I used the site in question becasue it contained quotes from mainly Jewish writers ( those awful self-hating Jews) who had the integrity to speak out about influential Jewish lobbies, something I was discussing with Skeptic at the time.
It was not used as a source for discussing the USS Liberty.

The source I used for the USS Liberty in that particular thread was:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

renata

10th September 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Hey, last year demon and AUP used Institute of Historical Review as their source that USS Liberty was attacked with premeditation."

Not true but why am I not suprised?.
I used the site in question becasue it contained quotes from mainly Jewish writers ( those awful self-hating Jews) who had the integrity to speak out about influential Jewish lobbies, something I was discussing with Skeptic at the time.
It was not used as a source for discussing the USS Liberty.

The source I used for the USS Liberty in that particular thread was:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

You are correct, my mistake. You used IHR in the thread about USS Liberty as a support for your allegation about a Jewish Lobby.

My apologies for my error.

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by JamesM

Zundelsite?! Do you fancy quoting some of it, or finding another link, I'd rather not click on a holocaust-denial website.

Edit: I see Cleon has made the same point, rendering this post redundant. Sorry for the duplication.

I just did a quick google, but did not check to see who owned the site. I do not go to holocaust denying sites for my information, as a matter of course. If you want to disregard the information, please do so.

Skeptic

10th September 2003, 06:45 PM

I just did a quick google, but did not check to see who owned the site.

You're up to your usual standards of "research" on "israeli crimes", I see: google "israel AND crimes AND evil AND USS Liberty" (or its equivalent) and just post whatever comes up as "evidence".

This is seen by the usualy "quality" of your "proofs": web sites that range from holocaust denying loons, to badly formatted personal pages without any references, to semi-"official" Palestinian propaganda sites. Obviously, you couldn't care less who puts it up, as long as they blame the jews.

So, answer me this, AUP: if your "research" of your "sources" for israeli "crimes" is SO sloppy and SO negligent you don't even notice when your "sources" are holocaust denying paranoid loons... why should we take a word you or your "sources" say seriously?

I do not go to holocaust denying sites for my information,

You just did.

as a matter of course.

...but when those are all the sources google brings up, what ELSE can you do? After all, the jews MUST be blamed SOMEHOW...

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I just did a quick google, but did not check to see who owned the site.

You're up to your usual standards of "research" on "israeli crimes", I see: google "israel AND crimes AND evil AND USS Liberty" (or its equivalent) and just post whatever comes up as "evidence".

This is seen by the usualy "quality" of your "proofs": web sites that range from holocaust denying loons, to badly formatted personal pages without any references, to semi-"official" Palestinian propaganda sites. Obviously, you couldn't care less who puts it up, as long as they blame the jews.

So, answer me this, AUP: if your "research" of your "sources" for israeli "crimes" is SO sloppy and SO negligent you don't even notice when your "sources" are holocaust denying paranoid loons... why should we take a word you or your "sources" say seriously?

I do not go to holocaust denying sites for my information,

You just did.

as a matter of course.

...but when those are all the sources google brings up, what ELSE can you do? After all, the jews MUST be blamed SOMEHOW...

I found three quick links, ( a bit slack, I know), one of which is a denying site. What is your actual problem? Why is it that it all comes down to you accusing me of hating you?

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 07:27 PM

The same letter, from a site that has nothing to do with denying the holocaust

http://www.ussliberty.org/lentini2.txt.

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by JamesM

One plane did see the markings and the Liberty was correctly identified. However, after the watch at Israeli Naval HQ changed, all that information was removed from the control board.

I can't accept that, at the end of a shift when a war is on, everyone cleans off the white board, cleans up their desks and goes home, with no formal handover of the situation and events in progress. The only way I could accept that is that it is so stupid it must be true.

That is also why the pilot transcripts are pretty worthless, they are only obeying orders. Those who gave the orders are the ones to be held accountable.

Skeptic

10th September 2003, 08:18 PM

I can't accept that, at the end of a shift when a war is on, everyone cleans off the white board, cleans up their desks and goes home, with no formal handover of the situation and events in progress.

So? Considering the fact that a). you've never even been to the middle east, let alone israel, and b). you've never even been a soldier, let alone in the high command, you are, more or less, the least qualified person in the world to comment on what "could" or "could not" have happened in an israeli high command center. What you said about what you can or cannot accept "really happened" is totally meaningless. It is about as important as Hoagland claiming that he "cannot accept" NASA's saying that the "face on Mars" is a hill.

Cleopatra

10th September 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I just did a quick google, but did not check to see who owned the site. I do not go to holocaust denying sites for my information, as a matter of course. If you want to disregard the information, please do so.

Yes but you see ,you expect others to give you the benefit of the doubt while you constantly refuse it to others.

Also, you have a tendancy to attack those that question your references.

Now that you have confessed that your references are products of quick google search ( you haven't even read what you posted) how do you think that we must deal with this.

What would you do if you caugh me posting something that questionable.

I wasn't surprized to tell you the truth because I have noticed that when you get into a debate you get so absorbed and passionate and the only thing that matters to you is to say a painful thing so as you have the last word.

The truth doesn't matter at all, all it matters is the impression, otherwise you'd spend sometime reading what you quote.

You remind me of the fanatic Orthodox Jews, sometimes.

a_unique_person

10th September 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Yes but you see ,you expect others to give you the benefit of the doubt while you constantly refuse it to others.

Also, you have a tendancy to attack those that question your references.

I think I only attack those that attack me.

Now that you have confessed that your references are products of quick google search ( you haven't even read what you posted) how do you think that we must deal with this.

I did read what I posted, but did not look at the context of the site that contained it. As I posted later, it was also on another non-holocaust denying site.

What would you do if you caugh me posting something that questionable.

Do I answer hypothetical questions?

I wasn't surprized to tell you the truth because I have noticed that when you get into a debate you get so absorbed and passionate and the only thing that matters to you is to say a painful thing so as you have the last word.

Not so.

The truth doesn't matter at all, all it matters is the impression, otherwise you'd spend sometime reading what you quote.

You remind me of the fanatic Orthodox Jews, sometimes.

I was brought up to be a good, fanatical Catholic. Even after I renounced Catholicism, I noticed that the mode of thought was still there, that is, absolutism, black/white. I think I have tried to leave those ways of thinking behind. However, having been brought up with such doctrinaire teachings, it does make me contemptuous of those who revel in them.

However, believe it or not, I do enjoy reading what people such as yourself and James have to say. It restores my faith in human nature to see rationality and learning at work. I think you are right about trying to rise above the unedifying spectacle that passes for debate here sometimes, and I respect that.

However, it did amaze me that a statement by a survivor, which I took at face value, was instantly used to attack me because I did not look at the web site it was on. As found out, the same statement is on another web site, which has nothing to do with holocaust denying.

DialecticMaterialist

11th September 2003, 12:47 AM

Yes Israel is a Social Democracy of sorts, but so what? Why should that matter? Do you think people put those types of ideologies above human life? Some people do, but any decent person does not.

Ah yes but lets not mention any of the people killed or opressed by under Muslim theocracies and monarchies. Tell me Malachi, where would you rather live, Israel or any of those Muslim states?

And that being the case shouldn't we give people who at least are good to their own more trust and support then people who regularly opress their own?

I think human lives have been lost, and there is a bit of guilt on both sides: however there is far more guilt on the genocidal and tyrannical muslims in my opinion then on the democratic Israelis who are merely trying to protect themselves in a world of ruthless and fanatical enemies.

demon

12th September 2003, 10:47 PM

From http://www.ussliberty.org/

WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN!
Liberty deniers continue to insist that, despite all the evidence, the attack on our ship must have been a mistake. "Israel would not do such a thing to its best friend," they insist. They persist in presenting silly arguments such as "poor memory," "fog of war," and "transmitters were 1KC off frequency for a few seconds." No serious researcher to our knowledge has ever bought into those stories, yet they persist.
Recent claims by Liberty deniers, however, has brought a number of insiders out of the closet. Several were revealed in the June 2003 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings, which brought supporting statements from such senior intelligence authorities as Oliver Kirby, Admiral Bobby Inman, former CIA Director Richard Helms, General John Morrison and many others of unimpeachable stature. Yet the deniers continue to deny reality.

We have known for years that communications between the attacking Israeli jets and their headquarters were intercepted as the aircraft approached our ship. The Israeli pilots were clearly told by their controllers to find and quickly sink "the American ship" which was USS Liberty. Those communications were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.

Thus Liberty's attackers were caught in the act and their treachery was known to the highest levels of the US government even before the attack was completed.

Now, thirty-six years later, people who saw those reports as they occurred find that they can remain silent no longer.

Presented here is the first of several such reports to come. This one, from former Air Force intelligence analyst Stephen Forslund, is presented in his own words.
http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm

And here, a statement from former Air Force analyst James Ronald Gotcher, who saw the same intercepts at an Air Force intelligence station in Vietnam.
http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm

Meanwhile, statements are being prepared from others who saw the same reports. Those will soon be presented in these spaces.

Stay tuned!

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

davefoc

13th September 2003, 12:44 AM

I don't have much to add to what has been said. I have followed this story for years. I first heard about it when I read an article by the commander of the Liberty more than twenty years ago.

For years I believed the Israeli's intentially attacked the Liberty. A few years ago I did a review of the various articles on the web about it and decided that in fact it probably was an accident, but with a lot of evidence to suggest that it wasn't. Amazingly enough, almost exactly Malachi's conclusion.

This link by AUP suggest a plausible scenario.
http://www.ariga.com/peacebiz/edits/liberty.htm

Clearly the American government and the Israeli government have successfully blocked full disclosure about the incident. But that doesn't mean the truth is that the Israeli's intentionally killed Americans.

ssibal

13th September 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by demon
From http://www.ussliberty.org/

WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN!
Liberty deniers continue to insist that, despite all the evidence, the attack on our ship must have been a mistake. "Israel would not do such a thing to its best friend," they insist. They persist in presenting silly arguments such as "poor memory," "fog of war," and "transmitters were 1KC off frequency for a few seconds." No serious researcher to our knowledge has ever bought into those stories, yet they persist.
Recent claims by Liberty deniers, however, has brought a number of insiders out of the closet. Several were revealed in the June 2003 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings, which brought supporting statements from such senior intelligence authorities as Oliver Kirby, Admiral Bobby Inman, former CIA Director Richard Helms, General John Morrison and many others of unimpeachable stature. Yet the deniers continue to deny reality.

We have known for years that communications between the attacking Israeli jets and their headquarters were intercepted as the aircraft approached our ship. The Israeli pilots were clearly told by their controllers to find and quickly sink "the American ship" which was USS Liberty. Those communications were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.

Thus Liberty's attackers were caught in the act and their treachery was known to the highest levels of the US government even before the attack was completed.

Now, thirty-six years later, people who saw those reports as they occurred find that they can remain silent no longer.

Presented here is the first of several such reports to come. This one, from former Air Force intelligence analyst Stephen Forslund, is presented in his own words.
http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm

And here, a statement from former Air Force analyst James Ronald Gotcher, who saw the same intercepts at an Air Force intelligence station in Vietnam.
http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm

Meanwhile, statements are being prepared from others who saw the same reports. Those will soon be presented in these spaces.

Stay tuned!

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

Actual tapes and transcripts from the day of the event have been released which indicate that the attack was not intenional and your smoking gun is a 'report' with claims of interceptions that may or may not exist written several years after the fact?

JamesM

13th September 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by demon
From http://www.ussliberty.org/

WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN!
It is unfortunate that there is no documentation to back up these claims, while documentation does exist to show that the State Department was unaware of the attack on the Liberty until after it had ended. As mentioned in the news story that opens this thread, Cristol used the FOIA to get the NSA tapes and he is quoted as having been informed by the NSA that there is no more documentation on the Liberty incident, which calls into question the existence of these intercepts.

edited to fix formatting

demon

13th September 2003, 10:39 AM

"It is unfortunate that there is no documentation to back up these claims..."

Granted...and as such I realise your problem with accepting their validitiy.
In that case, what do you think would motivate them to make up these claims?

JamesM

13th September 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by demon
what do you think would motivate them to make up these claims?
I don't know, but that does not allow me to conclude that these claims are genuine. People can and do tell lies about any number of things, from UFOs to the Loch Ness Monster to JFK. Therefore I am not compelled to accept claims that are not backed with any evidence. In this case there is not only an absence of documentation in favour of these claims, but documentation exists that contradicts the claims.

Skeptic

13th September 2003, 04:03 PM

For years I believed the Israeli's intentially attacked the Liberty. A few years ago I did a review of the various articles on the web about it and decided that in fact it probably was an accident, but with a lot of evidence to suggest that it wasn't.

The problem with the attack was that it was a military SNAFU on a high level. To rephrase the (very exhaustive and well-documented) report on what happened in AZURE magazine (not available off-line or in English, I am afraid) it is true that--due to reconnesaince information, etc.--the israeli high command SHOULD have known that the ship was American, and COULD have known it.

But--and this is the key point--they DIDN'T know it, for reasons of miscommunications and delays between army intelligence (that gathered the radio broadcasts, etc., proving the ship was American), the high command (which got those reports), and the air force (which sent the planes to attack). Simply put, the information that the ship was American did not reach the air force from the army intelligence until the attack was long over.

So, yes, if you consider the israeli army AS A WHOLE, I can see where the idea that it was intentional came from--"it" knew that the ship was American at time t, and "it" attacked it nevertheless at time t+1, which sure looks intentional! But the problem is, this assumes perfect information transfer between the branches which simply didn't exist. Yes, the army intelligence knew the ship was American at time t, and the air force attacked it at time t+1... but THE AIR FORCE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AMERICAN UNTIL T+2, SO IT ATTACKED THE LIBERTY WITHOUT KNOWING IT WAS AMERICAN, EVEN IF OTHERS IN THE ARMED FORCES DID.

That's all there is to it, really, except for one other distatsteful fact. The idea that israel, in the midst of a war of survival on three fronts, would deliverately attacks a ship of its only ally in the world is, shall we say, rather odd. Not logically impossible... but surely requiring a LOT of proof. It is highly revealing that some people are willing to jump to conclusion about the "awful israeli guilt"--needless to say, while ignoring the literally hundreds of Americans killed by the palestinians over the years, undoubtebly deliberately. It is not looking for the truth that motivates such "jumpers"; it's just the desire to find something--ANYTHING--to smear israel with.

skepticism

9th December 2006, 02:19 PM

it's considered a mistake only because no one can think of a motive.
Israel is an ally, a friend. Why would they attack America?

Israel's motive was to create an international incident, kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs.

Lyndon Johnson was the type who faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Lyndon Johnson was so pro Israel, he was FDR's lap dog who visited James Forrestal, arranging the "suicide." Johnson would have covered up anything for Israel.

They used to say the FBI comprised most of the Black Panthers. If you want to buy drugs, you'll find a narc or undercover agent posing as a delaler. Look behind an alleged Arab attack on America, you'll find Israelis. That was the motive. Americans aboard saw the Israeli pilots close enough, so they could wave at each other, the pilots couldn't help but know it was an American ship, that's what they were trying to destroy, and kill every American witness on board.

mr rosewater

9th December 2006, 02:27 PM

Skepticism, why do you hate, FDR, Johnson, Forrestal, Lap dogs, the FBI, Jews, Israelies, And on, on.

Ladewig

9th December 2006, 02:45 PM

Look behind an alleged Arab attack on America, you'll find Israelis.

I am afraid to ask, but I can't help myself:

Was 9/11 an Arab attack on America or an alleged Arab attack on America?

Darth Rotor

9th December 2006, 03:55 PM

it's considered a mistake only because no one can think of a motive.
Israel is an ally, a friend. Why would they attack America?

Israel's motive was to create an international incident, kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs.

Lyndon Johnson was the type who faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Lyndon Johnson was so pro Israel, he was FDR's lap dog who visited James Forrestal, arranging the "suicide." Johnson would have covered up anything for Israel.

Look behind an alleged Arab attack on America, you'll find Israelis. That was the motive. Americans aboard saw the Israeli pilots close enough, so they could wave at each other, the pilots couldn't help but know it was an American ship, that's what they were trying to destroy, and kill every American witness on board.
Have you bothered to read the book, or do you just repeat sound bytes from WN and CT web sites?
Assault on the Liberty (Jim Ennes (Random House 1980; Ballantine 1986; Reintree Press 2003, 2004) which tells the story
I read it a few years after it came out.

Jim Ennes was an officer on the bridge when the attack started.

Joe Meadors was a signalman on the bridge during the attack and is a former chairman and president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. He and Jim Ennes run the USS Liberty Web Site (http://www.ussliberty.org/).

DR

Darth Rotor

9th December 2006, 03:57 PM

Skepticism, why do you hate, FDR, Johnson, Forrestal, Lap dogs, the FBI, Jews, Israelies, And on, on.
Oh, give him a break, will you, lap dogs tend to shed on the carpet. :D

DR

fuelair

9th December 2006, 07:40 PM

Skeptic

9th December 2006, 11:17 PM

I have seen no information that supports accident and, unless the survivors can be shown to be liars, have heard and read evidence from them that the Israelis continued the attack following the point where the men on the ship had done everything possible to demonstrate that it was American.

The AZURE article deals with that point, as well. Yes, the Israelies continued to attack after the "Liberty" signaled that it is American... but it is obvious the signals WERE NOT SEEN IN TIME. The jets that attacked the "Liberty" under the impression that it is Egyptian made no mention in real-time of any American flag or markings; the captain of the Israeli ship which attacked the "Liberty" after the initial attack by the planes mistakenly identified its speed as (I think) close to 30 knots, which ruled out--as far as he knew--the possiblity that it is an American ship of the class the USS "Liberty" was; furthermore, when he approached the ship, which was by then covered with smoke, he also could not see any American markings. Nevertheless, he only fired on the ship after he was fired on (not that I blame the crew for firing on him, given what they believed at the time). The moment he DID identify American markings he broke off the attack.

Essentially, what we have here is a military SNAFU: the crew was sure they were deliberately attacked by the Israelies, but the Israelies were sure they were attacking an Egyptian ship. Nobody is saying the USS "Liberty" crew is lying about the fact of the attack or about signalling they were American; it's just that their interpretation of why they were still attacked after that it faulty. The sad fact is, the Israelis simply didn't notice their signals until too late.

This is made into some weird conspiracy by those who hate Israel, but, really, this sort of thing happens in every war: it is a wonder it doesn't happen much more than it does. As they say, friendly fire ain't.

zenith-nadir

10th December 2006, 05:46 AM

This is made into some weird conspiracy by those who hate Israel, That's exactly what it is.

Friendly fire deaths by the U.S. military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire)

WW2 - 16,000 killed
Vietnam - 8,000 killed
1st Gulf War - 35 killed
Invasion of Afghanistan - US fighter pilot dropped a 500 lb bomb on Canadian soldiers were performing a live fire exercise on April 17th, 2002.

So being a Canadian all I have to do is create a website "in honor" of the dead Canadian soldiers. Then I use the the website as just more "evidence" that the US military is guilty of "vile attacks" in not only Afghanistan, but in Kuwait, Vietnam and WW2. This obviously "proves" :rolleyes: America is evil and cannot be trusted.

There, see how easy that was? ;)

davefoc

10th December 2006, 09:30 AM

Sabra,
I was wondering what prompted the resurrection of this thread.

As to your comments, I think your analogies are weak.

In most of the other friendly fire incidents that you mention I suspect there is little question about what happened or at least there is little question of malicious intent by the perpetrators. This is not the case with the Liberty incident.

The Liberty ship attack is an incident where there was strong evidence that the Israelis intentionally struck at an American ship.

There is also strong evidence that they didn't. So it is reasonable to expect that some people will assume the truth is one way or the other and act accordingly. Confounding the search for truth is some apparent lies by the Israelis about the incident and the initial sham investigation of the incident by the Americans.

In the end, most of the people in this thread and I suspect most people who have read much about the incident come to the conclusions that the Israelis probably didn't intentionally attack the Americans. But that doesn't mean that the case for that is absolute or that one can't understand why some Americans remain mighty pissed off about the incident after all these years.

Skeptic

10th December 2006, 10:16 AM

I don't think anybody is suggesting the USS "Liberty"'s crew are antisemites or conspirators, Dave; they indeed had good reason indeed to think the attack was deliberate--because it was. What they could not have known, and indeed until recently nobody could know for sure since the material was only recently declassified, is that the Israelies truly believed they were attacking an Egyptian ship, due to a SNAFU.

The problem is when others, who do not know all the facts, raise this incident as "proof" of an evil Israeli conspiracy.

Skeptic

10th December 2006, 12:18 PM

The Liberty ship attack is an incident where there was strong evidence that the Israelis intentionally struck at an American ship.

There is also strong evidence that they didn't. So it is reasonable to expect that some people will assume the truth is one way or the other and act accordingly

If what you mean is that the USS "Liberty" crew had good reasons to honestly believe the attack was deliberate, you're quite correct. This, however, doesn't mean they are correct in their belief.

davefoc

10th December 2006, 12:56 PM

If what you mean is that the USS "Liberty" crew had good reasons to honestly believe the attack was deliberate, you're quite correct. This, however, doesn't mean they are correct in their belief.

That is exactly what I mean.

Ladewig

10th December 2006, 07:57 PM

Look behind an alleged Arab attack on America, you'll find Israelis.

How many alleged Arab attacks on America have there been? Was 9/11 one of them?

zenith-nadir

11th December 2006, 03:47 AM

Sabra,
I was wondering what prompted the resurrection of this thread.I didn't resurrect it. It was bumped by someone else and I had never seen this thread until yesterday.

As to your comments, I think your analogies are weak.Ok.

In most of the other friendly fire incidents that you mention I suspect there is little question about what happened or at least there is little question of malicious intent by the perpetrators.You mean when the American pilot bombed soldiers from my country with a laser-guided bomb he had "benevolent" intent? ;)

This is not the case with the Liberty incident. The Liberty ship attack is an incident where there was strong evidence that the Israelis intentionally struck at an American ship.So goes the conspiracy theory.

Even with technology 35 years more advanced than the Israeli technology in 1967 the American F16 still bombed soldiers from my country. My conspiracy "theory" is Maj. Harry Schmidt did it on purpose.

There is also strong evidence that they didn't. So it is reasonable to expect that some people will assume the truth is one way or the other and act accordingly. Confounding the search for truth is some apparent lies by the Israelis about the incident and the initial sham investigation of the incident by the Americans.There has been one friendly fire incident between America and Israel. Only one ever in the recorded histories of both countries. It happened 40 YEARS AGO and is still used to vilify Israel as if it took place yesterday.

So you don't mind if for the next 40 years, (until 2042), I use the Maj. Harry Schmidt friendly fire incident as evidence of "American malicious intent".

In the end, most of the people in this thread and I suspect most people who have read much about the incident come to the conclusions that the Israelis probably didn't intentionally attack the Americans. But that doesn't mean that the case for that is absolute or that one can't understand why some Americans remain mighty pissed off about the incident after all these years.Hey people can be pissed off. I just find when anyone wants to diss Israel you are guaranteed that this incident is dragged up out of the history books.

So when I feel like dissing America I shall drag up the April 18, 2002 incident when Maj. Harry Schmidt dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb on part of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

gumboot

11th December 2006, 04:04 AM

So when I feel like dissing America I shall drag up the April 18, 2002 incident when Maj. Harry Schmidt dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb on part of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

Hey since we're doing this, can I use Chunuk Bair as an excuse to criticise the British? Granted, it happened over 90 years ago, but hey, the British ships and their friendly fire managed to wipe out an entire battalion after a New Zealand Brigade had fought tooth and nail over 5 days.

How many Americans did those evil Israelis kill again?

-Gumboot

davefoc

11th December 2006, 04:17 AM

Sabra,
It is hard for me to believe that you can not understand my point.

The killing of the Canadian soldiers in a friendly fire incident was very sad. I was personally shaken by it. It has been a while since I have read about it but my recollection is that American commanders deserved some of the blame for the incident. However, there never has been a charge nor do I think there is any evidence that the US government ordered the attack.

The Liberty ship attack is quite different in that regard. The ship itself looked nothing like an Egyptian ship, the attack extended over a long period of time and the American sailors claimed that a large American flag was displayed on the ship. In addition, the American investigation after the incident was clearly a sham investigation.

All of this adds up to a reasonable case that in fact some contingent of the Israeli government ordered a strike on the Liberty ship that they knew to be American. So one doesn't need to be anti-Israel, or an anti-semite to believe that in fact Israel did order the attack.

As I have stated previously, I believe the attack was accidental and that when the publicly available data is reviewed the case is stronger that it was an accident than that it was intentional.

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to see the incident as evidence of anti-Israel attitude. Perhaps that is an underlying bias of some of the people that believe the story, but given the strength of evidence that it was an intentional attack I don't think that an anti-Israel bias is necessary to believe that the attack was intentional.

ETA: Although after thinking about it a bit more, I would agree with you that the fact that it continues to be brought up after all these years is mostly because of anti-Israel sentiment.

gumboot

11th December 2006, 04:22 AM

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to see the incident as evidence of anti-Israel attitude. Perhaps that is an underlying bias of some of the people that believe the story, but given the strength of evidence that it was an intentional attack I don't think that an anti-Israel bias is necessary to believe that the attack was intentional.

Isn't the issue how the attack is USED?

If we take dear Alex Jones, creator of "TerrorStorm", he uses the attack as an example of a "False Flag Terror Op" orchestrated by the US Government against its own citizens.

Even assuming nefarious purposes, I really don't see that this attack is an example of a false flag terror operation against the US people. Alex Jones is USING this event to further other goals.

Likewise, those of an Anti-Israeli persuasion will use the Liberty attack to further their own goals.

-Gumboot

davefoc

11th December 2006, 04:33 AM

gumboot

11th December 2006, 04:41 AM

gumboot,
After I finished my post, I thought about what Sabra was saying a bit more and I think he was at least partially right. I edited my post at the end to say that.

And I think you are right also, generally when the attack is brought up today it is by people who disagree to some extent with the US subsidy of Israel or Israeli actions with regard to the Palestinians.

Yes I spotted that. :)

I think the problem is the same reverse bias occurs - that being people who express an opinion that the attack was deliberate often get accused of being anti-semitic even if they aren't.

-Gumboot

zenith-nadir

11th December 2006, 04:43 AM

How many Americans did those evil Israelis kill again?

-Gumboot34.

Sabra,
It is hard for me to believe that you can not understand my point.

The killing of the Canadian soldiers in a friendly fire incident was very sad. I was personally shaken by it. It has been a while since I have read about it but my recollection is that American commanders deserved some of the blame for the incident. However, there never has been a charge nor do I think there is any evidence that the US government ordered the attack.Yet with technology 35 years more advanced than Israel's 1967 technology friendly fire incidents still happen.

The Liberty ship attack is quite different in that regard. The ship itself looked nothing like an Egyptian ship, the attack extended over a long period of time and the American sailors claimed that a large American flag was displayed on the ship. In addition, the American investigation after the incident was clearly a sham investigation.That all may be true. But it happened 40 years ago and has no bearing on Israeli relations or intentions in 2006. Yet it is still used as "evidence" of Israeli maliciousness.

All of this adds up to a reasonable case that in fact some contingent of the Israeli government ordered a strike on the Liberty ship that they knew to be American. So one doesn't need to be anti-Israel, or an anti-semite to believe that in fact Israel did order the attack.Yet to date, no one has ever provided the person who gave the conspiracy theory's "order to attack".

...but given the strength of evidence that it was an intentional attack I don't think that an anti-Israel bias is necessary to believe that the attack was intentional.There were ten official American investigations, and three Israeli investigations (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)). So the conspiracy theorists want everyone to believe that all thirteen investigations MUST BE wrong and they, the conspiracy theorists, are right.

ETA: Although after thinking about it a bit more, I would agree with you that the fact that it continues to be brought up after all these years is mostly because of anti-Israel sentiment.It is. And that is my point with the Maj. Harry Schmidt incident. I could bring that up 40 years from now but what would it really prove? Nothing.

The Painter

11th December 2006, 05:12 AM

Wow, for such a crowd of intellectuals and critical thinkers, there are a lot of anti-Semites here.

If there were a button you could push to eliminate every Jew on the planet, would you push it? Be honest, would you?

Cain

11th December 2006, 07:32 AM

I never understood the fuss over this incident. The interesting thing about 9/11 conspiracy theorists is their racist assumption about Arabs living in caves could not possibly successfully attack the all-powerful United States, and how the military, NORAD, etc., suspiciously failed to properly react given their super-duper technology. The government is supposed to be almost omniscient, including our shamefully boobish one at the present time.

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities, nearly all of which are a forseeable consequence of a conscious long-standing policy decision to inflict terror and upon the Palestinians.

What the incident shows, in my view, is the all-too cozy relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Assuming the same circumstances and any other country, there would have been a tremendous outrage, investigations, and reprisal bombings if the perpetrators were non-white. Here's a piece on the episode from my man Jeffrey St. Clair (co-editor of my favorite anti-Israel publication): http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony: More proof has recently come to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack." He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.

Is this guy just a nutter who might as well claim he killed JFK?

Darth Rotor

11th December 2006, 07:44 AM

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities, nearly all of which are a forseeable consequence of a conscious long-standing policy decision to inflict terror and upon the Palestinians.

Have you read Ennes' book?

The most important thing, IMO, that Israel did, deliberate or not, was admit culpability, and pay reparations. As far as I am concerned, that was an act of good faith. So to, Sabra, the official regret by the US government on the Command and Control/Communications failures that led to the Canadian Forces being hit with a bomb intended for Taliban, in a case of error.

Concerning the remarks of one of the IDF pilots, whose remarks were then retracted, it doesn't help anything other than to feed the speculations that the truth of the matter was never fully examined.

Skeptic, I am sorry, but the post hoc "declassified" documents aren't going to make me feel any better. I have a dog in this fight, as a career Navy Officer who had the opportunity to serve on the gun line off of Beirut, eraly 1980's. Our guidance was pretty simple regarding the IAF jets who would now and again do over the water surveillance patrols. The Israeli planes were not to be treated as friendlies. The Israelis were, and are, assessed as stictly "on their own side." Makes sense to me, a sort of bunker mentality, given the geostrategic situation.

DR

zenith-nadir

11th December 2006, 08:29 AM

Concerning the remarks of one of the IDF pilots, whose remarks were then retracted, it doesn't help anything other than to feed the speculations that the truth of the matter was never fully examined.

DRThere was a total of thirteen investigations, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)). Israel did pay reparations to the United States. Yet, the USS Liberty is still a favorite "see-I-told-ya-Israel-is-bad-news" meme 40 years after-the-fact.

So to, Sabra, the official regret by the US government on the Command and Control/Communications failures that led to the Canadian Forces being hit with a bomb intended for Taliban, in a case of error.

DRWhen the Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 the Americans said they had mistakenly identified an Airbus A300 for an attacking military fighter. A top-of-the-line AEGIS warship couldn't tell a difference between a fighter and an Airbus.

I guess in 2028 I should be able to bring up the USS Vincennes incident... then go "see-I-told-ya-America-is-bad-news." ;)

Darth Rotor

11th December 2006, 08:35 AM

There was a total of thirteen investigations, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)). Israel did pay reparations to the United States. Yet, the USS Liberty is still a favorite "see-I-told-ya-Israel-is-bad-news" meme 40 years after-the-fact.

When the Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 the Americans said they had mistakenly identified an Airbus A300 for an attacking military fighter. A top-of-the-line AEGIS warship couldn't tell a difference between a fighter and an Airbus.

Not fighter, aircraft.

Tell ya what, smart guy, you tell me how to visually identify a plane with a SPY-1 radar, and I'll give you a beer. It is not a synthetic aperture rader. It sends back blips.

That said, a lot of people in the US Navy felt that Captain Rogers decisions could have been better, and contributed to an engagement that was in error. Of course, one year prior, USS Stark had been hit.

Tell me, again, what attacks US forces made on Israel Forces in the year before the Liberty (1966) that influenced the Command and Control decisions to permit the engagement on that ship by planes and torpedo patrol boats?

DR

JamesM

11th December 2006, 08:51 AM

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony
There is no 'Evan Toni'. Jim Ennes says that the man's name was "Evan Tov AKA Tovni". A Jay Cristol, in his book on the Liberty incident, refers to him as 'Amnon Tavni'.

However his name is spelt, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was in the IAF and no-one has been able to track him down.

See this thread at the Liberty forum (http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=590). Jim Ennes weighs in on page 2.

Bottom line: much like a lot of the 'evidence', if you think the attack was deliberate, this is another piece of the puzzle. If you don't, this is just another unsubstantiated story.

zenith-nadir

11th December 2006, 03:01 PM

Not fighter, aircraft.

DR

"According to U.S. government accounts, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian aircraft as an attacking military fighter." (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#U.S._government_accounts))

"The commanding officer of the Sides, who was in the CIC at the time, believed it was an F-14, because he said he did not dispute the fact that it was an F-14 when the Vincennes made that call." (cite (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-sasc-19880908.html))

Tell ya what, smart guy, you tell me how to visually identify a plane with a SPY-1 radar, and I'll give you a beer. It is not a synthetic aperture rader. It sends back blips.

DRI am no expert in SPY radar systems, hell, I've never even seen one, I do know that the transponder on the Airbus was operational. I also can cite the testimony of Admiral Fogarty (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-sasc-19880908.html) to verify that it was operational.

Senator Levin. And the person who jumped up and said “possible commercial air” or “possible com air” at 6:51, what was the basis of his statement?
Admiral Fogarty. He did not jump up, sir. He was actually behind the commanding officer, looking over at the consoles the commanding officer and the tactical action officer had.
Senator Levin. I am reading. It says he jumped up. Your report says he jumped up.
Admiral Fogarty. Then my report is wrong. He did not jump up. He was standing at the time. So it was not “Jump.” I will have to correct that.
He was standing behind the commanding officer at the time and looking over his shoulder and seeing the CRO, which is the readout we described in the briefing, that showed an increasing altitude and a Mode III readout, which means civilian airliner. That was the basis upon which he made his call of “commercial air.”

I also know that A) the Airbus transponder was squawking Mode III, code 6760 continuously, testimony from the USS Sides corroborate the flight path and the Mode III IFF squawk, and B) attempts to contact Iran Air 655 were sent on the wrong frequency and addressed to a non-existent Iranian F-14.

That said, a lot of people in the US Navy felt that Captain Rogers decisions could have been better, and contributed to an engagement that was in error. Of course, one year prior, USS Stark had been hit.

DR And at the time the Liberty was hit it was 12.5nm off the coast during the Six Day War. There were no state-of-the-art AEGIS weapon systems or transponders.

Tell me, again, what attacks US forces made on Israel Forces in the year before the Liberty (1966) that influenced the Command and Control decisions to permit the engagement on that ship by planes and torpedo patrol boats?

DRI dunno what influenced anyone 40 years ago. Frankly I don't care, it was 40 years ago. Time to put some closure on it. Now as a Canadian when an American F16 bombed part of our 3rd Battalion Battle Group I was pissed. But I let it go, #$%@ happens, I put closure on it.

So when I hear people bring up the Liberty 40 years after-the-fact, and then start to get upset about it, I shake my head and wonder why the hell they are so personally invested into a small event from way back in 1967.

However his name is spelt, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was in the IAF and no-one has been able to track him down.

See this thread at the Liberty forum (http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=590). Jim Ennes weighs in on page 2.Here's what Jim Ennes says:

"There is the obvious suspicion that he invented the whole story to try to stay out of jail. The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted."

Yet Evan Tov AKA Tovni is part of the USS Liberty mythology... "the pilot who recognized the ship as American" is quoted in Cain's post quoting from counterpunch. The USS Liberty legend lives on!

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony:

Well there's an example of Cain quoting counterpunch and Jeffrey St. Clair who make a claim that Ennes has the "smoking gun!" A pilot named Evan Toni. Well JamesM was kind enough to provide Jim Ennes's own testimony. Jim Ennes's never verified or documented the claims of the so-called smoking gun Israeli pilot who Cain and counterpunch quote as A) real, and B) truthful.

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest. ;)

davefoc

11th December 2006, 05:13 PM

What exactly is your point Sabra?

That the only reason a person might conclude that the attack on the Liberty was an intentional act of the Israeli government is that they are some combination of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic?

Your main argument in favor of that, IMHO, (and I realize we probably won't agree on this), is just plain bogus. The vast majority of friendly fire incidents including the ones you mentioned are believed to have been accidents. There is no case to be made for any of these that I am aware of that any government expressly ordered an attack on their own or allied soldiers or civilians in the case of the Iranian jet liner.

This means that your use of these incidents as a comparison with the Liberty ship incident for the purposes you intend is just plain wrong. The Liberty ship incident is almost unique in friendly fire incidents in that it involved errors that were so apparently egregious that even in the face of the fact that there was no obvious motive for them it was hard to believe that the attack was not intentionally directed at the Americans.

To repeat what I said above, I think there is something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up at least partially by people who disagree with the American subsidy of Israel as an argument against that subsidy. There is probably something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up because of anti-semitism.

Where we disagree and will continue to disagree, I suspect, is that I think there are large numbers of people who believe the attack was intentionally aimed at an American ship who are not motivated by anti-Israel or anti-semitic feelings and you don't.

zenith-nadir

11th December 2006, 05:44 PM

What exactly is your point Sabra?That the USS Liberty has been artificially kept alive long past it's due date.

That the only reason a person might conclude that the attack on the Liberty was an intentional act of the Israeli government is that they are some combination of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic?That would be a strawman.

Your main argument in favor of that, IMHO, (and I realize we probably won't agree on this), is just plain bogus.I never once used the term anti-Semitic. Although I do feel that the USS Liberty is often quoted by elements who are interested in more than just honoring the dead sailors.

The vast majority of friendly fire incidents including the ones you mentioned are believed to have been accidents. There is no case to be made for any of these that I am aware of that any government expressly ordered an attack on their own or allied soldiers or civilians in the case of the Iranian jet liner.So when Americans blow up Canadian soldiers and Iranian airliners it's "an accident". When Israel hit the Liberty it's "a war crime." I get it.

This means that your use of these incidents as a comparison with the Liberty ship incident for the purposes you intend is just plain wrong. The Liberty ship incident is almost unique in friendly fire incidents in that it involved errors that were so apparently egregious that even in the face of the fact that there was no obvious motive for them it was hard to believe that the attack was not intentionally directed at the Americans.So what? Really? What is your personal investment into the USS Liberty? Without looking it up on the internet can you name any three of the thirty four sailors who died? The Israeli pilots and officers on duty that day in 1967 are long and gone. So why, 40 years later, are people still pining over the USS Liberty.

To repeat what I said above, I think there is something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up at least partially by people who disagree with the American subsidy of Israel as an argument against that subsidy. There is probably something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up because of anti-semitism.I have never once used the term anti-semitism.

Where we disagree and will continue to disagree, I suspect, is that I think there are large numbers of people who believe the attack was intentionally aimed at an American ship who are not motivated by anti-Israel or anti-semitic feelings and you don't.The attack was on an intelligence-gathering ship 12 miles offshore during the Six Day War. Why folks can't find "closure" even after Israel made reparations and thirteen separate investigations boggles my mind.

The My Lai Massacre and coverup doesn't "prove" America is all bad just like the USS Liberty doesn't prove Israel is all bad. But generally that is what the USS Liberty is used for.

Darth Rotor

11th December 2006, 05:55 PM

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest. ;)
There's irony for you, IDF apologist. :p

Smart guy, what else was the USS Vincennes involved in when the Iranian plane got shot down? Talk to me.

I am very familiar with the commentary of the CO of the USS Sides, read his article in USNI Proceedings the month it came out. This was the captain of a ship that was of the class called by much of the fleet "Helen Keller," (Sides was a FFG 7) and whose track quality in the NTDS AAW link was in those days low quality at best. CORT wasn't even a wet dream then.

Transponder spoofing is a way to attempt to mask one's identity. I used to do it in fleet exercises all the time, when I got to play Orange forces.

Do you assume your enemy to be stupid, or sly? Me, I was raised with a simple rule in a war zone: squawk or die. The Iranian pilots were repeatedly hailed, and chose to ignore the hail of an armed warship in a war zone.

Freaking arrogant morons. Consider the amount of time OS's on tracker alley hailed that aircraft over IAD frequency. To put this in perspective, in 2004 a tanker with a couple of US jets were aerial refueling over eastern Iraq. To avoid a thunderhead, the tanker pilot kept cheating eastward. He ended up either violating, or almost violating, Iranian air space. Iranian air defense hailed him. He got the eff out of there. (IIRC< Rummy was two days later apologizing to Iran publicly for the infringement of their sovereign air space.) One can be smart and not fired upon, or stupid and risk being fired upon.

The above considered, Captain Rogers was, when all is said and done, quick on the trigger. The CO of the Stark got hammered, Rogers not so much. I didn't give a flying fruitbat that a few hundred rag heads were dead. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. US forces had been involved in a number of engagements with the Iranians, to include some scraps on oil platforms in the Gulf. US was reflagging Kuwaiti ships and convoying them out of the Gulf to keep the international oil stable. Why? The Iranian decision to put the squeeze on oil tankers by attacking them during the Iran Iraq war.

But please, tell me again, what hostile actions had the US taken in 1966, in the year before Israel chose to attack a US ship? (Or, if you prefer, accidentally attacked a US ship. One could argue that an Israeli flight leader was worried about a false flag operation in the case of USS Liberty.)

In 1988, that last thing that was going to cause me to lose sleep was anyone devoutly Muslim (ever hear of a thing called the Islamic revolution?) dying. Shi'ite Muslims were behind significant terror activites against US all over the Middle East. The important fact was, in a dubious engagement in the Persian Gulf, which was an on and off war zone, that no Americans died. Had USS Stark not happened the previous year . . . who knows what the political motivation would have been to hang Captain Rogers as an example? I'll argue that without Stark, Rogers would have been a sacrificial lamb. With Stark as a context, he was allowed some slack.

Works for me.

Me, I don't consider Israel evil. Israel is. What I consider less than worthy is the matter of cover ups. Sort of like the Nixon deal: what's worse, the crime or the cover up? Heck, ask Martha Stewart. :p

DR

Dr Adequate

11th December 2006, 09:22 PM

Israel's motive was to create an international incident, kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs. However, what with all the exitement they completely forgot that this was their plan. In particular, they forgot to do the bit where they "kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs". The big Semitic silly-billies. They also forgot that a warship has radio equipment, so that the attack would be reported whether or not there were surviving witnesses; and they forgot to paint over the big Star of David symbol on the planes by which the US sailors recognized them as Israelis.

If Evil Jews weren't so absent-minded, I bet they'd be running the world by now.

Skeptic

11th December 2006, 10:29 PM

Skeptic, I am sorry, but the post hoc "declassified" documents aren't going to make me feel any better.

But that's not the point; the point is not was that the attack was a good thing. The point it: was it a deliberate attempt to kill Americans? The answer is no. It was a case, as we now know for sure, of mistaken identification.

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities

And, also of course, the PLO, Hamas, and other of the Palestinian "Freedom Fighters" had killed--deliberately--literally hundreds of Americans, yet some fools still think that they are somehow in the right.

Of course, those Americans, like the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer who was thrown overboard by PLO terorists who took over a ship full of Americans, were just Jews, so I guess they don't count as real Americans.

zenith-nadir

12th December 2006, 12:24 AM

Smart guy, what else was the USS Vincennes involved in when the Iranian plane got shot down? Talk to me.

DRIrrelevant. A state-of-the-art top-of-the-line billion-dollar warship couldn't tell the difference between an airliner and a hostile threat.

Transponder spoofing is a way to attempt to mask one's identity. I used to do it in fleet exercises all the time, when I got to play Orange forces.

DRSo that is the reason for shooting down an airliner? It could've been an Iranian fighter faking it was an airliner? Sorry but none of the data recorders reported any IFF response other than Mode III, Code 6760 yet the Vincennes continued to consistently misreport the signal.

Do you assume your enemy to be stupid, or sly? Me, I was raised with a simple rule in a war zone: squawk or die. The Iranian pilots were repeatedly hailed, and chose to ignore the hail of an armed warship in a war zone.

DR The Iranian pilots NEVER HEARD THE CALLS as the Americans were hailing a commercial airliner on the wrong frequencies.

"The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency. " (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Radio_frequencies))

Freaking arrogant morons. Consider the amount of time OS's on tracker alley hailed that aircraft over IAD frequency.

DRWell if you know anything about flying an aircraft the pilots of flight 655 were not monitoring the International Air Distress frequency. It was business as usual as the Iranian aircraft was climbing to cruising altitude, it was communicating with Bandar Abbas Control. Had the Vincennes tried to call the airliner on the Bandar Abbas Control frequency... well that is asking too much. ;)

I didn't give a flying fruitbat that a few hundred rag heads were dead. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. US forces had been involved in a number of engagements with the Iranians, to include some scraps on oil platforms in the Gulf.

DRAnd my guess is at the time the Israelis didn't give a flying fruitbat that the USS Liberty was hit. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. How you like them apples?

But please, tell me again, what hostile actions had the US taken in 1966, in the year before Israel chose to attack a US ship? (Or, if you prefer, accidentally attacked a US ship. One could argue that an Israeli flight leader was worried about a false flag operation in the case of USS Liberty.)

DREgyptian and Russian ships were known to operate under false flags. Unknown to the Israelis, the Liberty had sailed into the war zone on June 8. It was 12 miles off the coast gathering intelligence when it got hit. Time to let it go. Time to put closure on it. Like I've said before most of the people who bring up the USS Liberty couldn't name one sailor who died that day. It is generally brought up in order to question support of Israel.

Had USS Stark not happened the previous year . . . who knows what the political motivation would have been to hang Captain Rogers as an example? I'll argue that without Stark, Rogers would have been a sacrificial lamb. With Stark as a context, he was allowed some slack.

DRAllowed some slack? The crew of the Vincennes received combat-action ribbons for shooting down an airliner full of civilians!

There's irony for you, IDF apologist. :xtongue

DRI am not an apologist. I am not saying firing on the Liberty was right. All I am saying is it's time to let it go. Time to stop using an event from 40 years ago as the basis for "1001 reasons Israel is evil." America makes mistakes too ya know.

Cain

12th December 2006, 01:47 AM

Well there's an example of Cain quoting counterpunch and Jeffrey St. Clair who make a claim that Ennes has the "smoking gun!" A pilot named Evan Toni. Well JamesM was kind enough to provide Jim Ennes's own testimony. Jim Ennes's never verified or documented the claims of the so-called smoking gun Israeli pilot who Cain and counterpunch quote as A) real, and B) truthful.

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest. ;)

Well, well, well, you're about as sharp as a waterballoon. Please, please, please quote exactly where I, Cain, describe this source as "real" and "truthful"? Oh, and feel free to overlook, you know, the parts where I make no such claim, and go ahead and fabricate the "smoking gun" line, excise my question, etc.

And, also of course, the PLO, Hamas, and other of the Palestinian "Freedom Fighters" had killed--deliberately--literally hundreds of Americans, yet some fools still think that they are somehow in the right.

Yeah, now that I think about it you're right: Palestinians... ahem, sorry. "Palestinians" -- all of'em deserve to be slowly exterminated.

Of course, those Americans, like the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer who was thrown overboard by PLO terorists who took over a ship full of Americans, were just Jews, so I guess they don't count as real Americans.

Who cares if they were 'mericans, or not? Why is being American important (outside of the nagging fact that the America enables Israel's immoral policy of occupation -- just as Israel aided S. Africa's Apartheid regime). I guess the difference is that Israel "deliberately" intends to drop bombs on old men in wheelchairs, and when half a dozen children are blown to smitherens in the process, it's a blame-free accident.

zenith-nadir

12th December 2006, 06:12 AM

Well, well, well, you're about as sharp as a waterballoon.An ad Hom. Nice opening. :D

Please, please, please quote exactly where I, Cain, describe this source as "real" and "truthful"? Oh, and feel free to overlook, you know, the parts where I make no such claim, and go ahead and fabricate the "smoking gun" line, excise my question, etc.I'd love to. You wrote, and I quote:

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony:

The "testimony" you refer to is from an October 2003 article in Counterpunch by Jeffery St. Clair. You highlighted and quoted:

Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack." He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.I cannot believe that you would post "testimony" to prove your own point if it was "unreal" and "untruthful." That just doesn't make any sense. Ergo, you quoted Counterpunch because you thought is was "real" and "truthful", and you thought it was a smoking gun, an Israeli pilot who admits everything!

It was documented to be false.

JamesM linked to Jim Ennes's own posts on the Liberty forum and Jim Ennes admits that:

"The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted."

So what kind of skeptic relies on claims that have never been verified, documented or refuted? Yet represents such claims as factual testimony? I'll tell you who did, you did Cain. See when it comes to hating Israel anything is believable.

Yeah, now that I think about it you're right: Palestinians... ahem, sorry. "Palestinians" -- all of'em deserve to be slowly exterminated.Now we've made the leap from debunking your so-called "testimony" to a big fat wet strawman about exterminating Palestinians. An ad hom, to false "testimony" to strawmen. At this point I ring the bell and get off the crazy bus.

Cain

12th December 2006, 06:40 AM

An ad Hom. Nice opening. :D

It's not ad hominem. Here we go with a major red flag on JREF school to debate. We see it again, with the invokation of the "straw man." As I've said time and time again, from years of experience on this forum, when members mistakenly refer to these fallacies, they're in trouble.

Let us also forget this question:
"Is this guy just a nutter who might as well claim he killed JFK?" It was a serious, honest question. I saw James' post afterward and I was going to thank him for providing the information, but I did not have enough time. I didn't know. I was looking for an alternative point of view (which is sort of why I described _Counterpunch_ as my favorite "anti-Israel" website, indicating their entrenched perspective). I thought this was relatively clear from the general approach of my post as far as this "non-incident" goes, and military screwups in general.

I'd love to. You wrote, and I quote:

The "testimony" you refer to is from an October 2003 article in Counterpunch by Jeffery St. Clair. You highlighted and quoted:

I cannot believe that you would post "testimony" to prove your own point if it was "unreal" and "untruthful." That just doesn't make any sense. Ergo, you quoted Counterpunch because you thought is was "real" and "truthful", and you thought it was a smoking gun, an Israeli pilot who admits everything!

It was documented to be false.

JamesM linked to Jim Ennes's own posts on the Liberty forum and Jim Ennes admits that:

"The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted." [/quote]

Since you apparently never understood anything I wrote, assuming the worst, I don't think my waterballoon crack is all that outlandish.

So what kind of skeptic relies on claims that have never been verified, documented or refuted? Yet represents such claims as factual testimony? I'll tell you who did, you did Cain. See when it comes to hating Israel anything is believable.

Heh, if I believed any of this to the degree that you claim -- and I can authortiatively verify that I do not -- then I would unambiguously believe Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty. But I don't. What's hilarious is that you're just jumping to conclusions, making unsupported assumptions about the assumptions of those evil Israel-haters.

Now we've made the leap from debunking your so-called "testimony"

Yes, we certainly have made something of a leap!

to a big fat wet strawman

Straw man. Sure!

about exterminating Palestinians. An ad hom, to false "testimony" to strawmen. At this point I ring the bell and get off the crazy bus.

:rolleyes:

I love this crap, especially the people who then spew nonsense about their own personal committment to "skepticism." If you want my point of view, I'm inclined to agree with Dave's sentiments (with the belief that if I had to bet it was NOT intentional). But the "Israel-can-do-no-wrong" crowd takes matters much further, and the implausible becomes inconceivable. In the final analysis, as I've said, it doesn't matter because the agreed upon facts convincingly demonstrate the U.S.'s cozy (or "unskeptical", if you prefer) relationship with Israel and, in terms of the larger conflict, far greater (and calculated) atrocities committed by Israel (overwhelmingly against Palestinians). But your inept ode to skepticism ignores these more relevant facts.

Darth Rotor

12th December 2006, 07:26 AM

Irrelevant. A state-of-the-art top-of-the-line billion-dollar warship couldn't tell the difference between an airliner and a hostile threat.
Argument from ignorance. Back to my point on synthetic aperture radar. Standard AAW doctrine includes fighter intercept, and typically a VID to confirm an engagement, where available. Guess what? No fighters over the PG that day, so the ship's Captain is dealing with uncertainty. Deal with it. Now, you can argue that he dealt with it poorly, post hoc, and many in the US Navy felt that way, based on factual matters, his scrap with Iranian surface forces, and doctrinal arguments, but not on fantasy camera radar presumptions like yours. The lack of confidence in CIWS that was common in those days, IMO, factors into any AAW engagement decision.
So that is the reason for shooting down an airliner? It could've been an Iranian fighter faking it was an airliner? Sorry but none of the data recorders reported any IFF response other than Mode III, Code 6760 yet the Vincennes continued to consistently misreport the signal.
Yes, it is a justification to shoot down an air contact, unknown, presumed hostile, that is flying a profile deemed to be a threat, by the Captain in CIC. His risk decision, given imperfect information, was "do I risk it being hostile, and getting hit -- he was involved in a surface action at the time -- or do I shoot and make sure I don't get hit?" It is the Captain's job to make that call. He erred to the side of caution, regarding his ship and his American men. Works for me.
The Iranian pilots NEVER HEARD THE CALLS as the Americans were hailing a commercial airliner on the wrong frequencies.
IAD is 243.0 MHz the world over. If you dont' monitor it, you are a moron.
Well if you know anything about flying an aircraft the pilots of flight 655 were not monitoring the International Air Distress frequency.
I do indeed know quite a bit about flying aircraft in international airspace, and I again note that these pilots were negligent.
And my guess is at the time the Israelis didn't give a flying fruitbat that the USS Liberty was hit. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. How you like them apples?
No, Sabra, the 1967 war was in the Sinai, not the Persian Gulf, and the Israeli pilots had ample opporunity to Visually ID the Ship as American. The Vincennes did not have any means of VID for the air contact. I don't doubt that any number of Israelis didn't care that Americans died in their 1967 war, as collateral damage, given the "rock and a hard place" strategic situation Israel was in vis a vis Egypt and Syria.
Egyptian and Russian ships were known to operate under false flags. Unknown to the Israelis, the Liberty had sailed into the war zone on June 8. It was 12 miles off the coast gathering intelligence when it got hit. Time to let it go. Time to put closure on it. Like I've said before most of the people who bring up the USS Liberty couldn't name one sailor who died that day. It is generally brought up in order to question support of Israel.
I don't know who generally brings it up, or why, but I do know that I am thoroughly familiar with RoE and VID processes, as well as fire discipline. Given Ennes' testimony, the Israeli pilots were bloody negligent in their failure to identify the USS Liberty as a US ship, given its markings and the flag flying on it, particularly when one considers how close they came during their fly by passes before that attack. That they presumed a false flag also means that they had crap for ship sillouhette training, which is a standard for Maritime Strike aircraft.

That said, the explanation of a mind set seeing non-Israeli or hard to identify ships "most likely hostile, most likely a false flag" is a rational "worst case explanation." That fits with a similar mistake in VID by 2 US F-15 pilots who shot down 2 US Blackhawk helicopters (http://www.fas.org/man/gao/osi-98-013.htm)over Northern Iraq -- mis identifying them as Russian/Iraqi Hinds -- killing 26, Americans and allies. (April of 1994).
Allowed some slack? The crew of the Vincennes received combat-action ribbons for shooting down an airliner full of civilians!
That is related to the other factor that you choose to ignore, and that the CO of the Sides dismissed as irrelevant: the Vincennes was engaged in a surface action vis a vis Iranian patrol boats at the time of the shoot down. Some guys I know think Captain Rogers was out picking fights. I'll leave that discussion to the crowd who publish in USNI Proceedings. The US government put a ship in harms way, in a war zone, which means that it accepted the risk that somethings were going to happen.
I am not an apologist. I am not saying firing on the Liberty was right.
Glad we agree on that, and I'll again point out that I don't reject in toto the assertion that it was a bloody awful mistake, specifically a blown VID by pilots pre-disposed to presume the worst.
All I am saying is it's time to let it go. Time to stop using an event from 40 years ago as the basis for "1001 reasons Israel is evil." America makes mistakes too ya know.
I don't think the Liberty event makes Israel, writ large, evil. In my first post in this thread, I acknowledge that Israel did the right thing when it became known what they had done: acknowledged culpability, called it a mistake, and paid reparations. Oddly enough, Saddam also cried "mea culpa" after the Stark, and so did the US did after the fish were fed in the PG by our Iranian chums. That does not stop Iranians from holding a grudge on that matter, does it?

DR

zenith-nadir

12th December 2006, 08:12 AM

That does not stop Iranians from holding a grudge on that matter, does it?

DRI guess I just don't understand holding a grudge for 40 years because 36 sailors, (who nobody can name off the top of their heads), died in 1967. I just don't. For me the Liberty has become a tool of the "see-I-told-you-Israel-is-bad" crowd.

With that I am Liberty-ed out.

gtc

12th December 2006, 06:45 PM

just as Israel aided S. Africa's Apartheid regime)

I hear this bandied about a lot, what is the evidence?

I guess the difference is that Israel "deliberately" intends to drop bombs on old men in wheelchairs, and when half a dozen children are blown to smitherens in the process, it's a blame-free accident.

But the two situations aren't really comparable are they?

One was a civillian the other was a terrorist leader.

Darth Rotor

12th December 2006, 07:13 PM

I guess I just don't understand holding a grudge for 40 years because 36 sailors, (who nobody can name off the top of their heads), died in 1967.
Then here are their names for the top of your pointed head: (http://www.ussliberty.org/casualty.htm)
LCDR Philip McCutcheon Armstrong, Jr., USN,
LT James Cecil Pierce, USN
LT Stephen Spencer Toth, USN
CT3 William Bernard Allenbaugh, USN
SN Gary Ray Blanchard, USN
CT2 Allen Merle Blue, USNR-R
QM3 Francis Brown, USN
CT2 Ronnie Jordon Campbell, USN
CT2 Jerry Leroy Converse, USN
CT2 Robert Burton Eisenberg, USN
CT2 Jerry Lee Goss, USNR
CT1 Curtis Alan Graves, USN
CTSN Lawrence Paul Hayden
CT1 Warren Edward Hersey, USN
CT3 Alan (NMN) Higgins, USN
SN Carl Lewis Hoar, USN
CT2 Richard Walter Keene, Jr., USN
CTSN James Lee Lenau, USN
CTC Raymond Eugene Linn, USN
CT1 James Mahlon Lupton, USN
CT3 Duane Rowe Marggraf, USN
CTSN David Walter Marlborough, USN
CT2 Anthony Peter Mendle, USN
CTSN Carl Christian Nygren, USN
SGT Jack Lewis Raper, USMC
CPL Edward Emory Rehmeyer, III, USMC
ICFN David NMN Skolak, USN
CT1 John Caleb Smith, Jr., USN
CTC Melvin Douglas Smith, USN
PC2 John Clarance Spicher, USN
GMG3 Alexander Neil Thompson, Jr., USN
CT3 Thomas Ray Thornton, USN
CT3 Philippe Charles Tiedtke, USN
CT1 Frederick James Walton, USN
With that I am Liberty-ed out.
Feel free to copy that list and refer to it at your leisure. On peaceful patrol in international waters. Killed for getting in the way of someone else's war, even though ample VID was available.

DR

fuelair

12th December 2006, 07:22 PM

One last time and I am out on this too - until this site, I was never called anti-Israel because of my attitudes about the Liberty - and feel free (though you should already know since we have both posted on several sites) to go to my profile and see what I have had to say about Israel, IDF etc. Whether you like it or not, I am and will be (upset) about whatever Israelis were involved in that murder of US citizens/ assault on a US military vessel and I would happily have done to them what I would happily do to the slime that were involved in blowing up the marine barracks, dragging dead U. S. soldiers in streets, killing Israeli civilians, kidnapping Israeli military personnel, murdering children because they weren't smart enough to get to their father - i.e. I don't like terrorists in any form or uniform. I don't know the names of the three kids, the people dragged ,the marines in the barracks, (I do of the kidnapped Israelis) , the bombed and shot and iirc stabbed Israeli civilians, the people on the Lockerbie flight or the Liberty. I don't need to know their names to know they were assaulted/maimed murdered for no purpose I could possibly support. That said, otherwise I support Israel in its' fight to remain alive and do not in any way consider Israel my enemy. It is quite possible to hate one violent, terrible act without being against the country or the very large majority of its' people.

a_unique_person

12th December 2006, 08:23 PM

I hear this bandied about a lot, what is the evidence?

IIRC, it was supposed to be about the need to test their nukes, a quid pro quo.

Mycroft

12th December 2006, 09:37 PM

Where we disagree and will continue to disagree, I suspect, is that I think there are large numbers of people who believe the attack was intentionally aimed at an American ship who are not motivated by anti-Israel or anti-semitic feelings and you don't.

What do you think the motive of such an attack would be?

davefoc

12th December 2006, 10:02 PM

What do you think the motive of such an attack would be?

First, to make it clear, I think the available evidence cuts strongly against the idea that an attack on an American ship was ordered by the Israeli government. One of the most important reasons for me is that the Israeli government doesn't seem to have had a good motive to do it.

Perhaps others will help me out here but I have heard two possible motives.

1. The Israelis were up to something no good and didn't want the Americans listening in on what it was.

2. The Israelis did it as a provocation with the idea of blaming it on somebody else.

Possibility one strikes me as on the edge of plausible, but highly unlikely.

Possibility two strikes me as implausible. The risk would have been enormous that the Americans would uncover a plot like that. In addition, it seems very unlikely that the Israelis would attack their benefactors just as a matter of their ethics. It is true that some Israelis did kill some British soldiers twenty or so years previous to this incident, so at least some Israelis were not above turning on benefactors, but those attacks happened before Israel was a country and the attacks on the British were condemned, I believe, by most of the Israeli factions.

There is also the possibility of a motive we don't know about.

Huntster

12th December 2006, 10:19 PM

Those Israelis are just soooo damn sneaky.....

Yeah. Same with those damned Yankees.

Sometimes they're sneakier than Hell, and sometimes they're as inept as Hell.

It all depends on your ideology.

Like this particular issue is concerned, it's especially wonderful when we can blame the Jews for being oppressive against Yanks.

Dr Adequate

12th December 2006, 10:48 PM

1. The Israelis were up to something no good and didn't want the Americans listening in on what it was.

2. The Israelis did it as a provocation with the idea of blaming it on somebody else.

Possibility one strikes me as on the edge of plausible, but highly unlikely.

Possibility two strikes me as implausible. And there we go.

As for possibility 2, I think I've nuked it. As for possibility 1, whatever they were up to the Americans found out a day later, and I invoke the Suez crisis. If the Americans really didn't like what the Israelis were doing, they could have stopped 'em.

It is true that some Israelis did kill some British soldiers twenty or so years previous to this incident ... A fact which, being British, I will condemn, until someone asks me whether, nonetheless, a state in the Israel/Palestine region can be legitimate despite being supported and founded by terrorism, at which point I guess I have to answer "yes".

If Israel is legitimate despite the Stern Gang, then Palestine is legitimate despite Hamas.

Mycroft

12th December 2006, 10:54 PM

Dave, I think the point is that those that insist Israel did it on purpose are conspiracy nuts precisely because there is no real motive for Israel doing it that stands up under the slightest scrutiny.

Yes, it’s possible for someone to look at the evidence and still come to the conclusion that Israel did it on purpose without being an anti-Semite. All one really needs for that is to be swept away by the stories of the survivors.

But realistically, militaries around the world are filled with stories of colossal f-ups. You can’t spend an evening with someone recently in the military without eventually getting to that one story where everyone from Captain on down went along with this amazingly stupid idea, and they were all lucky to survive.

This one is worse than most because so many people died. But it’s also the kind of thing that happens in war, where a modern soldier is more likely to die from friendly fire than from the enemy.

The real issue is why it’s still controversial after 40 years.

Dr Adequate

12th December 2006, 10:59 PM

Dave, I think the point is that those that insist Israel did it on purpose are conspiracy nuts precisely because there is no real motive for Israel doing it that stands up under the slightest scrutiny. Right.

I am, as you know, no apologist for everything that Israel has done, and yet the only person on this thread who has offered a motive for the "deliberate attack" hypothesis is:

(1) Wrong.

(2) A Holocaust denier.

(3) A believer in the innocence of OJ Simpson.

(4) Raving, barking mad.

davefoc

13th December 2006, 12:49 AM

Dave, I think the point is that those that insist Israel did it on purpose are conspiracy nuts precisely because there is no real motive for Israel doing it that stands up under the slightest scrutiny.

I think this is one of those strange situations where there is good evidence for the occurrence two mutually exclusive events.

On the one hand you have the nearly impossible idea that the Israeli pilots could have confused the American ship with any Egyptian ship. At least by the silhouette images I have seen the Egyptians had no ships that looked remotely like the American ship. In addition, the sailors on the liberty ship claim that an American flag was clearly visible. It seems highly likely to me that they were telling the truth on that. In addition the attack went on for a considerable length of time by different attackers. It is hard to imagine even given the fog of war that the incident could not have been an intentional attack on an American ship. Given these facts and others that I have read but can't recall in detail right now, I find it completely reasonable that many people would believe the attack was intentionally directed at Americans regardless of their views about Israel.

On the other hand you have the results of several investigations that have found that the event was indeed an accident coupled with the lack of a likely motive by the Israelis. And for me those two facts are enough to make a good enough case to conclude that the incident was probably an accident.

Skeptic

13th December 2006, 01:06 AM

There were ten official American investigations, and three Israeli investigations (cite). So the conspiracy theorists want everyone to believe that all thirteen investigations MUST BE wrong and they, the conspiracy theorists, are right.

You're correct about that, Sabra, but that's not Dave's point. His point as I see it is to differentiate between those on the ship had good reason to think the attackers knew they were Americans, from later conspiracy theorists who use the sailors' recollection as proof that the attack was intended as an attack on an American ship.

The difference is that the USS Liberty crew could not know what the current conspiracy theorists do know but supress: to wit, that investigation of the Israeli side shows conclusively the Israelies didn't know the ship was American.

Huntster

13th December 2006, 02:09 AM

Quote:
It is true that some Israelis did kill some British soldiers twenty or so years previous to this incident ...
A fact which, being British, I will condemn, until someone asks me whether, nonetheless, a state in the Israel/Palestine region can be legitimate despite being supported and founded by terrorism, at which point I guess I have to answer "yes".

Now, can opposed states in the Israel/Palestine region be legitimate despite being supported and founded by terrorism?

If Israel is legitimate despite the Stern Gang, then Palestine is legitimate despite Hamas.

Both are as legitimate as their diplomatic/military/political standing establishes.

I guess it's all in who is willing to fight, how hard they're willing to fight, and for how long.

He who fights, fights harder, and fights longer wins.

Gurdur

13th December 2006, 02:15 AM

Funny thread.
.....especially wonderful when we can blame the Jews for being oppressive against Yanks.
Some Yanks here just whine so very much so often about being oppressed by everyone else, including being oppressed by the American electorate not doing what they want.

Huntster

13th December 2006, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
.....especially wonderful when we can blame the Jews for being oppressive against Yanks.
Some Yanks here just whine so very much so often about being oppressed by everyone else, including being oppressed by the American electorate not doing what they want.

Yup.

Some sure do. Like here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70392)?

Here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70422)

Here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69399)

zenith-nadir

13th December 2006, 02:56 AM

Then here are their names for the top of your pointed head: (http://www.ussliberty.org/casualty.htm)

DRI bet a weeks wages that even you had to refer to the internet in order to stuff their names in my face. It was 40 years ago, Israel said sorry, get over it already.

On peaceful patrol in international waters.

DRIntelligence gathering ships don't patrol peacefully...they gather intelligence covertly. (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)).

in international waters

DR12.5 miles off the coast of Gaza during the Six Day war (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)).

Like I said I am Liberty-ed out. You have your right to an opinion and I have my right to my opinion.

Darth Rotor

13th December 2006, 09:00 AM

I bet a weeks wages that even you had to refer to the internet in order to stuff their names in my face. It was 40 years ago, Israel said sorry, get over it already.

Intelligence gathering ships don't patrol peacefully...they gather intelligence covertly. (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)).

12.5 miles off the coast of Gaza during the Six Day war (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)).

Like I said I am Liberty-ed out. You have your right to an opinion and I have my right to my opinion.

Let's see: your contention is that intelligence collection from international waters, or airspace, is a belligerent activity? How about from space? Is that too a casus belli?

No state of war between US and Israel.
No state of war between US and Egypt
No state of war between US and USSR

Signals collection ships, in international waters, conducting patrol, in peacetime, hence a peaceful patrol. Beyond FON, due to international waters, I'd like to understand how a passive intelligence collection activity is other than peaceful.

Was a Maritime Exclusion Zone declared by Israel before the attack?

DR

WildCat

2nd October 2007, 02:27 PM

New developments have come to light that I think settles it once and for all that there was a coverup here. And there's an excellent article in today's Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,4731731.story?page=1):
Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available at http://www.nsa.gov/liberty (http://www.nsa.gov/liberty) .
I think the only question left is why did Israel attack what it knew was an American ship, and why did the US cover it up?

davefoc

2nd October 2007, 03:02 PM

wow

Cleon

2nd October 2007, 04:17 PM

Wow. If that information is accurate, I'll definitely have to rethink my POV on the subject.

petra10

2nd October 2007, 04:38 PM

I too started a thread on this subject on the 40th anniversary of the attack.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84427

And I was "shot down"
I still think there is something to this.

WildCat

2nd October 2007, 05:03 PM

I too started a thread on this subject on the 40th anniversary of the attack.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84427

And I was "shot down"
I still think there is something to this.
I bumped this one because it was the longest-running, and I wanted to keep it away from conspiracy theories, since I think it's beyond that.

Did you read the long Tribune article I linked to? Contains much new information from named primary sources. I don't know how long they keep their stories up before they archive them (and make you pay!) so read it free while you can. It's nice to read about this subject from a non-conspiracy site.

a_unique_person

2nd October 2007, 05:31 PM

a_unique_person

2nd October 2007, 05:36 PM

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Six thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.

The transcripts Block remembered seeing "were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack," Block said. "The pilots said, 'This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?'

"And ground control came back and said, 'Yes, follow orders.'"

So it's settled now?

a_unique_person

2nd October 2007, 05:46 PM

Survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12 (http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%252012.pdf)
"Yet despite these things a few Americans seem to accept the preposterous claim that the attack was a mistake and that firing stopped with the torpedo explosion. One can accept and understand this attitude from an Israeli, as he would have a natural tendency to believe his country's version of events and to disbelieve contrary versions -- especially since he has no personal experience to draw upon. But how can an American disbelieve the virtually identical eyewitness reports of scores of surviving fellow Americans and accept instead the undocumented claims of the foreign power that tried to kill them? That is very difficult to understand or to accept.
The typical Israeli reaction is that we are liars or anti Semites, which of course we are not. We are American sailors honestly reporting an act of treachery at sea. At the very least we deserve your courtesy and understanding"

http://www.gtr5.com/about.htm

The Fool

2nd October 2007, 10:59 PM

Some content removed - the thread is old and lots of it was posted under different rules and so on so lets not be dragging up the more personal stuff from the past.

oh well, I wonder what will be the result of this. If I were family of the dead Sailors I would want to hear from any participating politicians from the time that are still alive...from either side....or maybe forget the talk and just explore thier body cavities with a baseball bat?

Darth Rotor

3rd October 2007, 06:59 AM

Some content removed - the thread may be old and lots of it was posted under different rules and so on so lets not be dragging up the more personal stuff from the past.

oh well, I wonder what will be the result of this. If I were family of the dead Sailors I would want to hear from any participating politicians from the time that are still alive...from either side....or maybe forget the talk and just explore thier body cavities with a baseball bat?
So, Admiral Moorer's observations that this incident was scandalous in how the Johnson administration dealt with it was pretty much spot on.

I seem to recall a WW II John Wayne movie called "They Were Expendable (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038160/)" that fits this scenario for all the wrong reasons. (PT boat skippers is the theme.) John Ford directed.

Thanks to the folks who provided the links. We can't undo the incident, but we can eventually find out where the cover up began. That's worth something, though I am not sure how to assign a value to it.

ETA: After reading a few of the pages, I noted redactions aplenty.
Unfortunately, they did not declassify all of the materials they hold. The redactions in the materials released are inexplicable, other than in support of the continuing cover-up.
I don't find that analysis unfair.

DR

WildCat

3rd October 2007, 10:43 AM

Thanks to the folks who provided the links. We can't undo the incident, but we can eventually find out where the cover up began. That's worth something, though I am not sure how to assign a value to it.
From the Chicago Tribune article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,66005.story?page=2&coll=chi_tab01_layout):
J.Q. "Tony" Hart, then a chief petty officer assigned to a U.S. Navy relay station in Morocco that handled communications between Washington and the 6th Fleet, remembered listening as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, in Washington, ordered Rear Adm. Lawrence Geis, commander of the America's carrier battle group, to bring the jets home.

When Geis protested that the Liberty was under attack and needed help, Hart said, McNamara retorted that "President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors."

McNamara, who is now 91, told the Tribune he has "absolutely no recollection of what I did that day," except that "I have a memory that I didn't know at the time what was going on."
How convenient for you to develop a sudden case of amnesia McNamara! I'll never understand how people can take such things to their grave.

Big Les

3rd October 2007, 04:58 PM

Looks like we have a winner for the next "have there been any real conspiracy" thread. Mind you, a lot of the theories were totally out of left field and textbook CT. It just happens that this time, the basic suspicion seems to have been born out.

Even a blind squirrel finds the odd nut I suppose. CTists take note - this is the standard of evidence that we require to take things like this seriously. Not nitpicking at imagined or irrelevant discrepancies.

Not forgetting that the real story behind all this is desperately sad.

a_unique_person

3rd October 2007, 05:12 PM

Big Les

4th October 2007, 05:34 AM

The Fool

4th October 2007, 03:38 PM

Fair point - I had actually had my mind somewhat closed by all the CT BS about false flag ops etc. It goes to show how CTs can actually be counter-productive where there is indeed something amiss (in this case a LIHOP scenario). They might even help any putative conspirators to get away with it for longer by distracting from the quality evidence and real issues. Rather like "psychic detectives".

I daren't venture to LCF - are they making a big deal out of this re 9/11?
very true les.....Whenever I see claims of "government coverup" I think loose change or some other bunch of imaginative nerds deciding that the Martians are behind it. In this case it was always going to come out in the end but it appears that if you can assure politicians that they will not have to face the consequences for 40 years then it is all systems go with coverups.

So where to from here? will the US public demand action...I doubt it personally, I think the 40 year method has worked.

davefoc

4th October 2007, 03:54 PM

very true les.....Whenever I see claims of "government coverup" I think loose change or some other bunch of imaginative nerds deciding that the Martians are behind it. In this case it was always going to come out in the end but it appears that if you can assure politicians that they will not have to face the consequences for 40 years then it is all systems go with coverups.

So where to from here? will the US public demand action...I doubt it personally, I think the 40 year method has worked.

It seems like that right now. I have known about this story for many years and new information about it is something that interests me. But the American media must think that people like me are in the tiny minority given their complete failure to cover the story.

I haven't seen a mention of it on any of the news channels, on Huffington Post, on Slate, on Salon, drudgereport or the LA Times. It is amazing. I think some Israeli sites have picked up on it and that's about it. I wouldn't have noticed the article except for wildcat's link.

a_unique_person

4th October 2007, 04:11 PM

It seems like that right now. I have known about this story for many years and new information about it is something that interests me. But the American media must think that people like me are in the tiny minority given their complete failure to cover the story.

I haven't seen a mention of it on any of the news channels, on Huffington Post, on Slate, on Salon, drudgereport or the LA Times. It is amazing. I think some Israeli sites have picked up on it and that's about it. I wouldn't have noticed the article except for wildcat's link.

The anti semitic MSM is all over it....not.

The Fool

4th October 2007, 05:29 PM

The anti semitic MSM is all over it....not.
LOL....maybe a front page spread on little green footballs?

david carmichael

20th May 2008, 02:37 PM

Swing & a miss, R Mackey....

1)The pilots knew they were attacking the USS Liberty...target study...if Egypt had had one of those "moon dish" antennas in their fleet it would have been a "day-one" priority target known to every Israeli pilot.

2) Guns capable of bombarding El Arish are so huge that the ships are ENGINEERED around the guns...the pilots could see small .50 caliber machine guns BUT MISS COMPLETELY the huge guns capable of bombarding offshore

3) They have lied about Kursa Flight's origins...2.75 inch rockets were used in the attack on the USS Liberty... no claimed munition could have blown out the porthole that exploded into LLoyd Painter's chest...

4) Kursa was not returning from Combat Air Patrol Station (dogfight)with 60 +% of their fuel remaining & rockets attached...can't go supersonic with rocket pods attached so dogfighting is out of the question.

They were NOT running out of fuel as claimed by Cristol

they were dispatched from Ashdod to attack the Liberty specifically as were the Motor Torpedo boats

5) BUT MAINLY---- A. Jay Cristol references the Kursa Leader to Kursa Wingman tapes("Look out for the masts!!) and provides the Royal Leader to Royal Wingman tapes.

They don't talk about Sunday picnics up there during an attack... it is "do you see what i see"...look for the wakes made by other ships in the area which stick out like comet's tails (none)...they discuss the wingman's covering/flanking position as the leader attacks.

...and there is NO conversation that could have gone on between Kursa Leader(Yiftzah Spector) & Kursa Wingman that could not have correctly identified the USS Liberty...

...which is why the transcripts were never released EVEN THOUGH they released Royal Flight transcripts...

But, I suppose..... Israel of course, could release them todayyyy, correct RMackey???:D

Every Fighter Pilot would chortle in contempt at any "Kursa Leader-to-Kursa Wingman" transcript.

So now to the readership & also to Stephen Wright...

Now that you know the facts....look at how someone has intentionally/unintentionally attempted to obscure the truth by reading
what is below in the quoted letterbox.

What claimed munition was it that blew the porthole into LLoyd Painter's chest, R Mackey...pro-Zionist Liberty Researcher, Mike Weeks has refused to answer

Far be it from me to inject some sanity back into this thread, but since I don't have a clue how the Richfield Ohio Police Department fits into this and the only person who knows seems incapable of coherent expression, let me try something different...

Some time ago in the Politics forum, WildCat brought to my attention some actual breaking evidence in the USS Liberty story. Not hocus-pocus altered photos and such, but good ol' investigative legwork. Post is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3020500#post3020500).

The news story there should not be treated as iron-clad proof, since it depends on some unidentified sources and is thus not repeatable, but I found it quite plausible, good enough for me to consider as the leading theory. If the story and my interpretation of it are correct, a rough outline of events is as follows:

In the heat of battle, Israeli warplanes accidentally attack a United States vessel (the Liberty)
Shortly thereafter, pilots realize their mistake and report its true identity to controllers
A low-level controller realizes that this mistake could be Very Bad and makes a snap decision -- destroy the evidence as quickly as possible
The controller orders pilots to resume the attack
The pilots, confused, argue with the controller but eventually carry out a second, half-hearted attack
After the second attack, pilots have no remaining doubts about the target's identity, report this to control, and break off the attack on their own initiative
Senior Israeli officers soon learn of this and try to squelch it, concerned that such an act might make them appear reckless, and cost them international support at an extremely critical time (viz. while engaged in war)
American officials also learn of this act -- either through restricted but official channels or through our own intelligence services -- and also decide that keeping it quiet favors our long-term goals (after all, it isn't like we're going to war with Israel because of an isolated blue-on-blue event)If this is true, then the USS Liberty is, indeed, an international conspiracy and coverup carried out willingly by the United States Government. Yes, it can and does happen.

But.

The conspiracy isn't all that exciting. This isn't a conspiracy to carry out some dastardly deed. This is spur-of-the-moment damage control to CYA, after somebody else made a terrible, but all too human, blunder.

One could argue that the actions of the US and Israeli governments were short-sighted. It is possible that, even had the IDF held a press conference five minutes later, announcing: "We accidentally attacked a US ship, twice, killing many on board, and officers in our military reacted badly after the fact. We accept full responsibility and promise to make full recompensation to the victims and the United States." Perhaps nothing would have happened. The international community might have just accepted it as one of the awful things that happens in a war. The United States has done its own share, shooting down our own helicopters, strafing British Army, bombing embassies by mistake, and so on. It happens. So they may have played it too safe by conspiring to quiet it until after the fighting had stopped. That's a political discussion.

There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the event was premeditated. Likewise, supposing the wild-eyed speculation about doctored photos and floating masts and different hull lines and so on is true, what does it mean? Is there any possible theory that such "anomalies" support? I can't think of any. This proves only one thing -- that the anomalies are the head of the person seeing them.

Same principle applies to the Truth Movement. Without a hypothesis, all the anomalies in the world amount to nothing. And while real conspiracies exist, they just aren't that exciting. Nobody goes to such fantastic lengths to pull off who knows what, it just isn't done. Too risky, and no reward. Period.

Dragoonster

20th May 2008, 09:05 PM

This one is worse than most because so many people died. But it’s also the kind of thing that happens in war, where a modern soldier is more likely to die from friendly fire than from the enemy.

The real issue is why it’s still controversial after 40 years.

From what I know, it's still controversial for four reasons:

1. The obvious, it's at least in part pushed by anti-Israel or anti-semitic persons.
2. The incident appears on face to be very hinky, at best overly aggressive on the parts of that particular Israeli command.
3. There hasn't been a satisfying (or appropriately skeptical) US government inquiry.
4. Some survivors of the incident, actual US sailors, are very critical of points 2) and 3)

Personally I'm on the fence. If I fault anything it's with how the incident was handled immediately afterwards, it would've made things a lot easier now. Compare that to the Vincennes incident which did have a credible (IMO) inquiry, along with a believable, indeed critical answer.

In short I don't think critics of the incident belong in the Conspiracy Theory (capital letters) camp. They seem more like Kennedy Assassination cters. There are serious problems, serious questions about a very dubious incident.

Or are like me, whose main criticism/question is whether our response to it was appropriate to Israel as it would have been to say, if Syria had "mistakenly" shot the crap out of a US vessel at the time claiming it was an Israeli freighter. I question the objectivity of scrutiny.

Dragoonster

20th May 2008, 09:11 PM

Incidentally, I had never heard of this incident until about 10 years ago. Until I had I fully supported Israel in their measures against Palestine, viewing Netanyahu and other hawks as noble hero types. It was in reading about it I started to look at other Israeli issues more objectively; even if it was a true mistake I was curious at the lack of interest or at least awareness of it, from the US populace and government. Even if I used it more as such than it deserves, it at least made me more objective on Israel issues (I hope).

It jump-started or greatly accelerated an entirely new range of skepticism for me, that of Middle East foreign policy.

Damien Evans

21st May 2008, 01:25 AM