Israel's attack on the USS Liberty...

A_unique_person's latest anti-Israel thread reminded me of something interesting concerning Israel. The topic of the USS Liberty has come up here before with all the conspiracy claims of Israel knowingly attacking the U.S. ship for a plethora of different and ridiculous reasons. Well, the NSA has recently declassified recordings that confirm that the attack was indeed a case of mistaken identity:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6265774.htm

[renata]

This was discussed before here

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/show...0&pagenumber=3

Unfortunately, although I posted an excerpt from the transcripts showing that the Israeli pilots did indeed think it was an Egyptian ship, that was not addressed by any posters who seemed to think this was in no way an accident, that Israeli pilots knew this was a US ship, that they were worried because they knew US was spying on Israeli war crimes, etc.

AUP did answer after my post, saying

Quote:

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.

When you pointed him to a link about the inquiries, he seems to have forgotten about the thread. Let's hope the new information may cause him to reexamine his earlier beliefs on the subject.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by renata

When you pointed him to a link about the inquiries, he seems to have forgotten about the thread. Let's hope the new information may cause him to reexamine his earlier beliefs on the subject.

Not likely. He seems to have little interest in actually finding out the truth when it comes to Israel. In another thread, he posted the claim that Israel had used some kind of nerve gas on an attack against Palestinians. Didn't take me long to prove that the claim was full of crap, and he kind of conceded the point, but he obviously had no interest in finding out the truth himself before he posted.

[crackmonkey]

Those Israelis are just soooo damn sneaky. They managed to switch the authentic tapes showing their deliberate massacring of our boys with fakes that exhonorated the them.

[Skeptic]

Not likely. He seems to have little interest in actually finding out the truth when it comes to Israel.

Or jews in general, for that matter.

They're EVIL, Batman, I tell ya!

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Those Israelis are just soooo damn sneaky. .

That's cuz the're JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWSSSSS

Just ask AUP

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by renata
This was discussed before here

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/show...0&pagenumber=3

Unfortunately, although I posted an excerpt from the transcripts showing that the Israeli pilots did indeed think it was an Egyptian ship, that was not addressed by any posters who seemed to think this was in no way an accident, that Israeli pilots knew this was a US ship, that they were worried because they knew US was spying on Israeli war crimes, etc.

AUP did answer after my post, saying



When you pointed him to a link about the inquiries, he seems to have forgotten about the thread. Let's hope the new information may cause him to reexamine his earlier beliefs on the subject.

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.

[Malachi151]

While I agree that it was a mistake there is still much to be critical of, mostly with the way that it was handled.

One thing was that no assistance was given to the Liberty by the US even though they asked for it.

Furthermore, the way that it was handled after the incident, didn't lend much trust to the situation either. It was not handled in a straight forwards and open manner so yes a lot of people were justifiably suspicious.

And don't forget that even survivors of the incident and American miltiary officials have thougth that it was intentional, so its not like AUP was going out on a crazy limb here.

Its also important to note that the Libery was a unique ship that looked nothing at all like any Egyptian ship that even existed or has ever existed and nnothing like any cargo ship ever made and it was flying a large Americna flag.

So, the reasons for suspician are many.

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

[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!

[Checkmite]

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

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]

Quote:

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.

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]

Quote:

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]

"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/nationwo...tion-storyutil

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

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]

From the sunspot article:

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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/bac...93/9306019.htm

[DanishDynamite]

Malachi151:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Liberty vs Egyptian Cargo ship



USS Liberty:

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/COI...fferences.html

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

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!

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]

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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]

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

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]

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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