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

[UNLoVedRebel]

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

[geni]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by geni

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

Here.
www.prothink.org

Originally Posted by geni

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

Fair enough criticism. Kinda felt the same way, but I figured we got some Navy guys here who might know more.

[Doctor Evil]

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

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

[JoeyDonuts]

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

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

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

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

[Alareth]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

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

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

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

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

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

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by Alareth

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

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

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

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

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

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

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

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

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

[Caustic Logic]

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

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

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

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

So in short, I don't know.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by Klimax

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

Ding ding.

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

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

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

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

[Caustic Logic]

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

Quote:

"To speculate on the motives of an attack group that uses unmarked planes and deprives helpless survivors of life rafts raises disturbing possibilities," he wrote, "including the one that the Liberty crew was not meant to survive the attack, and would not have, but for the incorrect 6th Fleet radio broadcast that help was on its way -- which had the effect of chasing off the MTBs [motor torpedo boats]." [p. 235]

And citing a 1981 NSA report:

Quote:

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

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

here.

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

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

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

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

Bump for anyone who's got this info

will check back after work.
Shalom

[Malkuth]

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

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

[fezzic]

(IMO)

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

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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


And citing a 1981 NSA report:

here.

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

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

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

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

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

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


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

[parky76]

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

can't it be both??

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

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

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

Well, from your own link, we have this to add, referring to the article by Crewdson, which:

Quote:

refers to U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, who was the Navy lawyer appointed as senior counsel to Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, named by Admiral John S. McCain (Sen. John McCain's father) to "inquire into all the facts and circumstances." The fact that they were given only one week to gather evidence and were forbidden to contact the Israelis screams out "cover-up."

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

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

(bolding mine)

But I'm no expert, so maybe I'm misreading that. And then, you dig some more and find:

Quote:

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

Why in the hell did they make that a Jpeg? I just read about Cristol today as well. He uses faulty arguments to explain the story away. Not a good sign, if there's supposed to be counter evidence. We get some after the fach hellicopter audio that shows some Israelis didn't know what was going on. Neat. How about the actual attackers, or planners? No record available. Hmmm... you are hmming at this point, I hope.

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

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by parky76

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

can't it be both??

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

[Caustic Logic]

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

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

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

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

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

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

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

In 1967 the US was certainly not "the most important ally" of Israel.

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

[WildCat]

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

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

[Eddie Dane]

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

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

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

BTW this is what friendly fire looks like from the receiving end.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

When gold was abandoned in favor of oil.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

When gold was abandoned in favor of oil.

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

[Donal]

What do you mean gold was abandoned for oil?

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, when armies train anti air personal to identify planes, looking for markings is frowned upon, as it deemed hard and unreliable. Instead, soldiers are trained to look at distinguishing features which can tell the model of the plane. As an example, here is a picture of two F16's

The distinguishing feature in this side-view is the 90 degree break of the engine/air collector (forgot the name of this part). This could be observed when the planes will be further away and moving.

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

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

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

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

* The IAF planned the attack in advance

and

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

* Did not use the proper munitions for the mission

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

[roundhead]

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

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

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...,1050179.story

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by roundhead

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

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

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...,1050179.story

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

[fezzic]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

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

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

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

BTW this is what friendly fire looks like from the receiving end.

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

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

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

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

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

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

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

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Wrong.

Quote:

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

Tell it to the Canadian Light Infantry.

[roundhead]

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

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

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by roundhead

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Furthermore, there was more than the one investigation.

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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



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

Furthermore, there was more than the one investigation.

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.
As a result, our commission concluded that:


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

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

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

The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.
What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the CIA and the military intelligence services.

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

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

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

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


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





Return to the opening page