PDA

View Full Version : CIA Report on uss Liberty Released Under FOIA



dan_pub
07-01-2007, 02:13 AM
The CIA has de-classified its report on the uss Liberty incident:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp?doc_no=0001359216&title=THE+ISRAELI+ATTACK+ON+THE+USS+LIBERTY&abstract=&no_pages=0015&pub_date=6%2F13%2F1967&release_date=10%2F20%2F2006&keywords=USS+LIBERTY&case_no=F%2D2004%2D00595&copyright=0&release_dec=RIPPUB&classification=U&showPage=0001

A few highlights:
para 5: easy mis-id with Egypt's El Qesir
para 7: mis-id lasted until 44mins after attack
para 10: Liberty wasn't where it should have been, botched order delivery.

Nice to hear the confirmation from the horse's mouth.
Won't stop the controversy, ofc. Nobody is more deaf than he who doesn't want to hear...

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0001.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0002.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0003.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0004.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0005.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0006.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0007.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0008.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0009.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0010.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0011.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0012.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0013.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0014.gif
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/0001359216_0015.gif

RIP to the sailors fallen in this tragic mistake.

Chounch McGavin
07-01-2007, 02:56 AM
More information on the Soviet vessels following the Liberty?

SOG
07-01-2007, 03:50 AM
leaves a lot of guess work between the "connect the dot" events. hardly anything new.

where did the ussr vessels come from and why were they not attacked as well? wasnt the ussr providing weapons etc to egypt etc? did they show up later?

reports by israel of crew going overboard yet none did?

positive ID of ship negative for hours?

ase290406
07-01-2007, 04:05 AM
The Soviets threatened to attack Israel near the end of the war. That's why the six fleet was in the vicinity. The Soviet forces were probably part of the task force designed to attack Israel. The war ended before WWIII began. I'd say it was the closest call besides the Cuban missile crisis.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 04:06 AM
First. Thank you dan_pub for the post.


leaves a lot of guess work between the "connect the dot" events. hardly anything new.

where did the ussr vessels come from and why were they not attacked as well? wasnt the ussr providing weapons etc to egypt etc? did they show up later?

reports by israel of crew going overboard yet none did?

positive ID of ship negative for hours?

No this is not that much of a change from the same document released years ago because of some Israel haters looking for blood, but it does add a lot clearer picture with all the hole filled.

An attack on a USSR vessel would have been an overt act of war, just as it could have been on our ship. The US made great efforts in Vietnam not to kill, hurt, or lame anything that was not NV , and at times we did all of those things to Chinese, and USSR people, buildings, and ships.

Knowing full well what it is like to shoot things at range, and at the same time figure out what is going on. I can say that people going overboard, and parts of the ship look very much the same. These guys also happen to be doing a lot more speed the when I broke things. Shadow, flashes, and the fact that in their minds, it was not only a target, but one that shoots back. I would say it does read. Hell we had people that lost track of the guy beside them in the same fox hole.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 04:16 AM
The Soviets threatened to attack Israel near the end of the war. That's why the six fleet was in the vicinity. The Soviet forces were probably part of the task force designed to attack Israel. The war ended before WWIII began. I'd say it was the closest call besides the Cuban missile crisis.
73 -- this was 67. 73 was the one that was pushed to the limit. 67 started, and ended before the US got that active ( We did have the ship there to spy on both sides, and we did have both the Med CVs in that end of the med, and on duty -- in short we did know the IDF was up to something, and at the time our thinking was to keep them from doing it). Our plan was to keep both sides from going to war. And the only way we could do that was to put pressure on Israel, the more we pushed, the more they clammed up. In all , other then the attack on our ship. Both sides did what they had to do. Same thing in 73. After 73, everything changed on the south side of Israel.

Redmen
07-01-2007, 04:31 AM
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Redmen2999/elquseir.gifEl Quseir vs Liberty

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Redmen2999/sliberty.jpg

dan_pub
07-01-2007, 05:11 AM
hardly anything new.
Correct. Nothing new. Just plain confirmation, by the US government agency,
of exactly what Israel has been saying all along.

And for some people it not be satisfactory.

KB
07-01-2007, 05:15 AM
The memo originally posted was drafted 5 days after the attack occurred; not exactly a painstaking AAR. Posted below is another memo, issued by Clark Clifford in July 1967, at the time head of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.


THE WHITE HOUSE

- WASHINGTON -


PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD

July 18,1967

The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty

The Attack

On the afternoon of June 8 (2:05 p.m., Israeli time), the USS Liberty while in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean suffered an attack by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats. When attacked the Liberty was approximately 15.5 nautical miles north of Sinai and was traveling in a westerly direction at a speed of five knots.


The initial attack consisted of five or six straffing runs by jet aircraft and was followed twenty-four minutes later with an attack by three motor torpedo boats.


The attack was executed with complete surprise, remarkable efficiency, devastating accuracy and deeply tragic results.


Israel's explanation the Attack


Israel1s explanation of the attack is summarized as follows:


a. The attack was an "innocent mistake--no criminal negligence was involved."


b. Israel's Navy and Air Force had received a number of reports that El Arish was being shelled from the sea. These reports were later determined to be erroneous but, at the time they were received, they were accepted at face value by Israeli Naval and Air Force headquarters.


C. Israeli officers who knew the Liberty had been identified earlier the same day did not connect her with the unidentified ships said to be shelling El Arish (and apparently the fact that a U. S. flag vessel was in the area was not communicated to subordinate elements of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)).


d. A second "mistaken report" -- that the Liberty was steaming at thirty knots--was received by the IDF. When the Liberty was identified on the morning of June 8, the IDF determined from Janes Fighting Ships that the Liberty's maximum speed was eighteen knots. The second "mistaken report" led to the conclusion that the earlier identification of the Liberty was erroneous and that the vessel allegedly traveling at thirty knots was an enemy ship.


e. ZDF standing orders provided that any ships in the area cruising at speeds above twenty knots may be brought under attack without further identification. Thus the air attack was launched.


f. A third mistake" resulted in the execution of the second (motor torpedo boat) stage of the attack. This third error of the IDF was its mistaken identification of the Liberty as the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir.


g. Immediately following the air attack, serious doubts began to arise concerning the true identity of the ship, but these doubts were not communicated to the commanding officer of the motor torpedo boats before he launched the second stage of the attack.


h. Prior to launching the torpedo attack one of the Israeli boats sent an "A-A" signal (meaning "what is your identity?") to the Liberty. The Liberty, instead of identifying herself, responded with an "A-A" signal. Officers on the Israeli boats interpreted the return signal as an evasion and concluded that the vessel in question was Egyptian, whereupon the torpedos were launched.


i. The Liberty acted with lack of care by approaching excessively close to shore in an area which was a scene of war, without advising the Israeli authorities of its presence and without identifying itself elaborately. The Liberty tried to hide its presence and its identity both before it was discovered and after having been attacked.


Our Findings of Fact


Based upon a thorough review of all information on the incident which has become available thus far, I wish to submit the following findings of fact:


a. At all times prior to, during, and following the attack, the Liberty was in international waters where she had every right to be. As a noncombatant neutral vessel she maintained the impartial attitude of neutrality at all times prior to the attack.


b. Prior to the attack no inquiry was made by the Israeli Government as to whether there were U.S. flag vessels in the general area of the Eastern Mediterranean adjoining Israel and the United Arab Republic.


c. The weather was clear and calm in the area at the time of attack and throughout the preceding hours of June . Visibility was excellent.


d. At all times prior to the attack the Liberty was flying her normal size American flag (five feet by eight feet) at the masthead. The flag was shot down during the air attack and was replaced by a second American flag (seven feet by thirteen feet) five minutes prior to the attack by motor torpedo boats. The Liberty did not endeavor to hide her identity or her presence in international waters at any time prior to or during the attack.


e. The Liberty's U.S. Navy distinguishing letters and number were printed clearly on her bow. The Liberty's number was painted clearly in English on her stern. (Egyptian naval ships such as the El Quseir, with which the Liberty was allegedly confused, carry their names in Arabic script.)


f. The ship's configuration and her standard markings were clearly sufficient for reconnaissance aircraft and waterborne vessels to identify her correctly as the noncombatant ship Liberty.


g. At the time she was attacked, the Liberty was making only five knots. Her maximum capability is eighteen knots, a fact which had been ascertained by IDF personnel when she was identified on the morning of June 8.


h. Prior to the torpedo attack the Liberty neither received nor dispatched an "A-A" signal. The Israeli claim that the Liberty transmitted an "A-A'1 signal prior to the torpedo attack is demonstrably false. The Liberty's signal light capability was totally destroyed in the air attack which occurred some twenty minutes before the torpedo boats appeared on the scene. Intermittently prior to the attack Liberty personnel observed a flashing light coming from the center boat. The first intelligible signal received by the Liberty was an offer of help following the torpedo attack.


i. The Liberty was reconnoitered by aircraft of unidentified nationality on three separate occasions prior to the attack--5 hours and 13 minutes before the attack, 3 hours and 7 minutes before the attack, and 2 hours and 37 minutes before the attack. Personnel on the Liberty, who observed and in some instances photographed the reconnaissance aircraft, were unable to identify them fully. Positive evidence concerning their nationality is still lacking, however, there are several grounds for assuming they were Israeli: (1) when the aircraft orbited the Liberty on three separate occasions the Arab-Israeli war was in its fourth day, the Egyptian Air Force had been substantially destroyed, and the Israeli Air Force was in effective control of the air space in the area; (2) [ ---- excised ----] received information from a reliable and sensitive Israeli source reporting that he had listened to IDF air-to-ground transmissions on the morning of June 8 indicating Israeli aircraft sighting of a vessel flying the U.S. flag; (3) in the course of advancing its explanation for the attack, the Israeli Government acknowledged that the Liberty had been identified by IDF officers early on the morning of June 8.


3. [ --- excised --- ] shortly after the torpedo attack, the Israelis began to have doubts as to the identity of the vessel and efforts were intensified to verify its identification. Ten minutes after the torpedo attack an Israeli ground controller still believed it to be Egyptian. Identification attempts continued, and forty-five minutes after the torpedo attack, helicopters were checking the masts, flag and bow number of the Liberty. By this time, there appears to have been no question in Israeli minds as to what had happened. The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli attacking force originally believed their target was Egyptian.


Conclusions


Based upon a thorough review of all information on the incident which has become available thus far, I wish to submit the following conclusions:


a. The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American.


b. The evidence at hand does not support the theory that the highest echelons of the Israeli Government were aware of the Liberty's true identity or of the fact that an attack on her was taking place. To disprove such a theory would necessitate a degree of access to Israeli personnel and information which in all likelihood can never be achieved.


c. That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable. El Quseir has one-fourth the displacement of the Liberty, roughly half the beam, is 180 feet shorter, and is very differently configured. The Liberty's unusual antenna array and hull markings should have been visible to low-flying aircraft and torpedo boats. In the heat of battle the Liberty was able to identify one of the attacking torpedo boats as Israeli and to ascertain its hull number. In the same circumstances, trained Israeli naval personnel should have been able easily to see and identify the larger hull markings on the Liberty.


d. The best interpretation from available facts is that there were gross and inexcusable failures in the command and control of subordinate Israeli naval and air elements. One element of the Israeli air force knew the location and identification of the Liberty around 9:00 a.m. and did not launch an attack. Yet, hours later, apparently a different IDF element made the decision to attack the same vessel that earlier flights had identified and refrained from attacking.


e. There is no justification for the failure of the IDF-With the otherwise outstanding efficiency which it demonstrated in the course of the war--to ensure prompt alerting of all appropriate elements of the IDF of the fact that a U.S. ship was in the area. There was ample time to accomplish such alerting because the Liberty had been identified as a U.S. flag vessel five hours before the attack took place.


f. The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished.


COPY LBJ LIBRARY

For an alternative view of what happened, visit the USS Liberty crew's website and draw your own conclusions.

http://www.ussliberty.org/

dan_pub
07-01-2007, 06:54 AM
Posted below is another memo, issued by Clark Clifford
The very tone of Clifford's memo goes a long way towards establishing his value as an impartial observer trying to establish the truth without prejudice, doesn't it?

It is great that you posted this. The juxtaposition of both memos, with their respective styles, is a superb demonstration of which one comes from a bigoted hater with an agenda.
Thanks for this post.

KB
07-01-2007, 07:13 AM
The very tone of Clifford's memo goes a long way towards establishing his value as an impartial observer trying to establish the truth without prejudice, doesn't it?

It is great that you posted this. The juxtaposition of both memos, with their respective styles, is a superb demonstration of which one comes from a bigoted hater with an agenda.
Thanks for this post.

Visit the Liberty crew's website...there's a lot more "bigoted haters" to read there.

By the way, Clark Clifford was one President Truman's closest advisers and is credited as being one of the more influential individuals in persuading him to recognize Israel as a nation in 1948- know your history.

Slug69
07-01-2007, 07:32 AM
The very tone of Clifford's memo goes a long way towards establishing his value as an impartial observer trying to establish the truth without prejudice, doesn't it?

It is great that you posted this. The juxtaposition of both memos, with their respective styles, is a superb demonstration of which one comes from a bigoted hater with an agenda.
Thanks for this post.

Your opening lines before the articles are very one sided as well. You omitted a couple of clarifications.

These releases are useless to us all anyway, they come from the CIA. When have they gotten anything right?

Then I spot the clincher which proves how pathetic Dan Pubs belief in this story is: This document was dated 13th June, 5 days after the incident, before a proper naval inquiry. What a joke. Who has an agenda? FFS.

SOG
07-01-2007, 09:23 AM
Correct. Nothing new. Just plain confirmation, by the US government agency,
of exactly what Israel has been saying all along.

And for some people it not be satisfactory.

oh yeah man, i wasnt knocking your post, sorry if you felt that intention, i was just saying i read similar before so it seems the same other than a few things. good post. i just heard something about the cia declassifying a crapload of files related to many things. (like spying on a fox news anchor etc)

AlphaOneSix
07-01-2007, 09:30 AM
These releases are useless to us all anyway, they come from the CIA. When have they gotten anything right?

Good job. Way to jump on the CIA-hating bandwagon. You only hear about the failures, of course. You never hear about all the good things, not because of the media, but because the Agency just doesn't talk about it's successes since they are all...ummm...secret. The bad news is secret, too, it just has a nasty habit of getting leaked by people with a poitical axe to grind. No reason to leak the good news.

SOG
07-01-2007, 09:39 AM
Good job. Way to jump on the CIA-hating bandwagon. You only hear about the failures, of course. You never hear about all the good things, not because of the media, but because the Agency just doesn't talk about it's successes since they are all...ummm...secret. The bad news is secret, too, it just has a nasty habit of getting leaked by people with a poitical axe to grind. No reason to leak the good news.

true.

in general - we need to keep this thread from going totally south. the liberty has been discussed here before and it got heated as well. dont want the thread locked, dont want old tensions or theories resurfacing especially between US/Israel.

OMEGA7
07-01-2007, 11:55 AM
All this report does is reaffirm that the IDF attacked the USS Liberty before ID'ing the ship (see#4) as friend or foe, and continued the attack until the ship started to sink, again without knowing if it was friend or foe.

"Don't believe what you read, and only half of what you see"

It is nice to see you . I've reading this article but there has been so interesting topic, so I forgotten to call, and then I's writing this topic . anyway, let's move back to my topic. I have a question why did he told us to be why shouldn't we get this topic deeply? I've been knew why did the dude living in the country where they doing as they likes to do . anything is being threaten by the Billy's living in that country . so I think, I have to notice all of the govermental societies facts.and we will able to get them be no unkindness behavior to do. it is the true of making our living eachother in this world.

IDF_TANKER
07-01-2007, 11:59 AM
It is nice to see you . I've reading this article but there has been so interesting topic, so I forgotten to call, and then I's writing this topic . anyway, let's move back to my topic. I have a question why did he told us to be why shouldn't we get this topic deeply? I've been knew why did the dude living in the country where they doing as they likes to do . anything is being threaten by the Billy's living in that country . so I think, I have to notice all of the govermental societies facts.and we will able to get them be no unkindness behavior to do. it is the true of making our living eachother in this world.

...?!!:roll:

Or it is only me?

Ezekiel25:17
07-01-2007, 12:08 PM
It is nice to see you . I've reading this article but there has been so interesting topic, so I forgotten to call, and then I's writing this topic . anyway, let's move back to my topic. I have a question why did he told us to be why shouldn't we get this topic deeply? I've been knew why did the dude living in the country where they doing as they likes to do . anything is being threaten by the Billy's living in that country . so I think, I have to notice all of the govermental societies facts.and we will able to get them be no unkindness behavior to do. it is the true of making our living eachother in this world.


Greetings, my lord!!!!!! Da messiah is back!

KB
07-01-2007, 12:58 PM
...?!!:roll:

Or it is only me?

Its not only you.

Henry's Fork
07-01-2007, 01:19 PM
MP.net no tatsujin!!! Omega-sama!!!

The Liberty incident always makes me shake my head when the Jew haters come out of the woodwork to point out how eeeeeeeevvvvviiiiillllll da Jews really are.

The trying to trick the US into their war, is always good for some laffs as well when brought up. Like the IDF woke up one morning and said, hey lets use our own aircraft and boats to shoot up the US, tricking them into the war by making them think they are under attack from a hostile arab country...yea that will fool em. :roll:

zvezdah
07-01-2007, 01:35 PM
The liberty was 455 feet long, the excerpt states it was 200 feet longer than the comparable egyptian, close to twice as long and they weren't curious about the size variation.

Tho I'm not one to believe in the conspiracy theory that the Israelis bombed it to keep from revealing the plans for the pre-emptive strikes. But they were certainly casual about attacking before knowing who it was

My original thought was it occurred before the start of the 6 day war which is incorrect, attack started on the 8th, war on the 5th.

Henry's Fork
07-01-2007, 02:02 PM
I really take offense at being called a "Jew hater" by you or anyone else because I don't agree with your line of cover up.

Sorry if my wide paintbrush of "in general" got on you. The label only fits if you are indeed one.

I didnt catch any of your previous posts as anti-jewish, or kool-aide drinking theories (like what i wrote), that are widely used today, so i am a little surprised that you are taken aback.

Hollis
07-01-2007, 02:11 PM
I really take offense at being called a "Jew hater" by you or anyone else because I don't agree with your line of cover up. The IDF attacked the USS Liberty killed many people and then built a fabric of half truths to cover it up. I was around at this time and remember what happened, it was said the USS liberty was a danger to Israel's plan to take the Golan heights, something the US had warned the Israeli government NOT to do. As a Elint ship the IDF was afraid that it would intercept radio traffic between IDF HQ and field units going in to the Golan thus reporting it back through channels to LBJ who was against the Israeli Golan grab. IDF was worried that JBJ would put pressure on Israel to halt its advance. so they took out the ship that would have tipped the US government about the Golan invasion.

Once the US Jewish lobby started there was no hope. Because I think this may be more the truth than what has come up on this board in no way makes me a "Jew hater" it just makes me a US citizen who wishes for the truth....


Have you ever read what you typed. So you were around then, So was I. The US did not release sensitive documents. The Israeli Pilot was never asked by anyone until recently. MAYBE before you start blaming the "Jewish Lobby" read it all.

Most of your first paragraph is mostly propaganda by the anti-Jewish lobby. So if your reiterating stuff from the anti-Jewish lobby...........??? That makes you what?

With the lack of complete disclosure at that time, it allowed all the anti-Irsael people to spin what ever story they wanted. The current release of information, transcripts, voice recording varifies what Judge Cristol concluded.

The next question to ask, "Who benefits from maintianing the previous misconceptons, that Israel is some evil culprit?"

The PA and their allies have a common perception, if it was not for the US, Israel would have been defeated long ago. It is in their interest to destroy the US/Israeli alliance.

KB
07-01-2007, 02:24 PM
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May-June 2007, pages 26-27
Special Report Four Decades of Twisting Facts About Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty

By James Ennes

http://wrmea.com/images/vertrule.gifhttp://wrmea.com/images/May-June_2007/ennes_01.jpg

The USS Liberty the day after Israel’s June 8, 1967 attack (Courtesy ussliberty.org).

SINCE JUNE 8, 1967, when Israeli air and naval forces deliberately attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty, Israel and its American supporters have lied about what happened.

The facts are simple and straightforward. Israeli forces reconnoitered the ship for hours in daylight with unlimited visibility, correctly reported the ship’s identity to their headquarters, then attacked the clearly marked and defenseless American ship by air and sea for more than 75 minutes, killing 34 men and wounding more than two-thirds of the 297-man crew.

After disabling the ship with a 40-foot torpedo hole and hundreds of cannon and missile hits, Israeli torpedomen continued to fire from as little as 50 feet away. They ignored the oversize American flag that flew in plain sight from the mast while firing on medical personnel and firefighters nearby. Finally, as preparations were being made to abandon ship, they machinegunned the ship’s empty life rafts which had been lowered into the water awaiting survivors—a clear violation of Geneva conventions.

The lies started almost immediately. Even before crewmen could give their eyewitness accounts, the Israeli government concocted a preposterous “tragic accident” story, claiming that the Liberty had been mistaken for an out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier designed to carry 40 horses and their riders for the Egyptian cavalry of the 1920s. According to this story, the Liberty was recognized as American only after torpedoes were launched. Since torpedoes can’t be recalled or redirected, however, Americans died. According to the Israeli story, the attackers immediately ceased fire and apologized for their “mistake.”

But this was not true. The torpedomen continued to fire long after they claim the last shot was fired. In fact, they continued to fire until they heard that air support from the Sixth Fleet was on the way.

Survivors of the attack fully expected to refute the Israeli lie during one of the investigations that would be sure to follow, and show that the attack was no accident. That, however, was not to be.

Despite the presence of more than 200 men eager to testify, the Navy Court of Inquiry inexplicably did not ask about deliberateness, and did not allow survivors to testify freely—nor did Congress or anyone else. Israel’s “Big Lie” was accepted at face value, and no questions were ever asked about whether the attack was deliberate or whether the Israeli story was true.

According to a sworn affidavit by the Court’s own legal officer, the official Navy transcript was fraudulently changed and rewritten in Washington after it was signed by members of the Court. The official record, therefore, is a forgery. Yet despite several appeals to the secretary of the Navy and others, the Navy refuses to investigate or even to contact the senior legal officer making these very serious charges (see <www.ussliberty.org/bostondeclaration.pdf (http://www.ussliberty.org/bostondeclaration.pdf)>).

Survivors of the Israeli attack have spent most of the ensuing 40 years trying in vain to right these wrongs, but have been frustrated at every turn. Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty remains the only major maritime incident in American history not investigated by Congress. Queries to Congress bring boilerplate replies and no serious attention. Why? Because the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty is simply too politically sensitive.

Individually, nearly everyone in government with knowledge of the attack agrees that it was deliberate. Dozens of senior officials, including White House advisers and most senior intelligence agency leaders, agree that Israel deliberately attacked a ship it knew to be American (see <www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm (http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm)>). A diplomatic note sent by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to Israel asserted our government’s disbelief in the Israeli story. Yet such notes were withheld from the public until years later, and the private views remained mostly private. Even today, 40 years later, former Sen. Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL) is one of the few elected officials who had the courage to tell the truth about this attack while still in office.

Survivors’ frustration is made worse by various spokesmen for the attackers such as Florida Bankruptcy Magistrate Ahron Jay Cristol and FLAME president Gerardo Joffe.

Cristol first gave serious currency to “The Big Lie” when his book, The Liberty Incident, falsely claimed that up to 15 investigations “including five congressional investigations” had all inquired into the attack and exonerated Israel of any wrongdoing.

As we have demonstrated previously in these pages and elsewhere, that is totally untrue. No American investigation has ever inquired as to whether the attack was deliberate. Certainly no congressional inquiry has done so. Cristol’s dishonest tactic is to find a mention of the attack in some official record and call this an “investigation that exonerated Israel.”

For instance, Cristol cites a 1968 remark by then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in an unrelated hearing asserting that the attack was not deliberate, while ignoring the conclusion of the hearing chairman Bourke Hickenlooper that “I have read [the reports] and I cannot agree that it was accidental.” Yet Cristol ignores Hickenlooper’s opinion and reports the hearing as supporting the “tragic accident” position.

Similarly, none of the “five congressional investigations” so often cited by Cristol were in fact investigations at all. None established or asserted Israeli innocence. But that does not stop Cristol from endlessly claiming that it does, and citing these and other fictitious sources as proof of Israeli innocence.

Sadly, other sycophants pick up Cristol’s ball and run with it. Perhaps most persistent is one Gerardo Joffe, president and chief cheerleader for the pro-Israel propaganda group FLAME—an acronym its critics maintain stands for “Fallacies and Lies About the Middle East.” In kneejerk letters to the Washington Report and in his FLAME Web site Joffe consistently parrots Cristol’s line that the Liberty attack has long been proven accidental and that it has been given too much attention, while other incidents are given too little.

Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League, whose stated mission is to stop defamation of the Jewish people and “to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” has no problem supporting the Cristol/FLAME fiction by pretending, according to its Web site, that “Several government investigations have concluded that the attack…was carried out in error” and that “every piece of information declassified to date…has supported this conclusion.”

Survivors repeatedly have asked Cristol and others to provide copies or other evidence of these so-called “investigations.” None have done so. They cannot. There are no such investigations. Similarly, we have asked them to remove their false statements. They refuse. These lies serve their purpose.

In fact, when survivors have sought details of such investigations from their congressmen, from the Navy Judge Advocate General, from the Library of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service, or from any other government agency, we have repeatedly been advised that there has never been any congressional investigation of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

Most recently, on July 25, 2006, in response to a query from Liberty survivors, the Librarian of Congress wrote:

“After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843.”

That should settle the issue for all time and bring Cristol, Joffe, ADL and other myopic Israel-can-do-no-wrongers to cease their never-ending claim that Israel has been exonerated by numerous investigations. That simply is not true, never has been true and never will be true, despite their blind determination to deny reality.

James Ennes was a lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty when the Israeli attack started and retired from the Navy after 27 years’ service. He is author of Assault on the Liberty (available from the AET Book Club).

Hollis
07-01-2007, 02:27 PM
only because it seems when dealing with the USS Liberty that if you don't agree automatically with the Israeli version you are labeled "Jew Hater", I don't agree, I think there was intent, and purpose in the actions the IDF took, does that make me a "Jew hater", probably yes to the narrow simple mind.


Again do you read your own post, you sound like the person who has the "narrow simple mind." To go against prevailing facts, to want to keep spinning it in a negative fashion that is contrary to those facts means you have something invested this this issue.

The facts are finally completely released, they demonstrate that Israel is not some evil monster. So what happens all the proponents of the notion that Israel is some evil monster is trying to but "spin" control on it. That is what you seem to be doing. It shows a Bias.

deadtired
07-01-2007, 02:35 PM
I've become convinced that Israel did not attack the Liberty knowing that she was an American ship. So Israel is not an evil monster in that respect. I do think, however, that it was very bad form on the part of the pilots/torpedo boatmen to engage in a sustained attack on a ship they had not positively identified.

I think this incident is very similar to the incident in Iraq when US A-10's shot up a Brit APC.

Fante da mar
07-01-2007, 03:09 PM
I think the point is that, whatever happened, whatever were the reason behind the Israeli attack and presence of the USS Liberty, it probably was not and it is not in the interest of both countries to reveal them.

And I do not think that American interest can be reduced to the pressures of a Jewish lobby.

And I believe that the USA are not free of guilt for having caused, or having had to cause the death of nationals of allied nations or even their own, in the pursuing their security policy.

Please do not jump from your chairs, I am not supporting a conspiracy theory on 9/11.

But let us take my country's example. An Italian airline DC-9 was blown out of the sky just north of Palermo in 1980. A Lybian Mig, or more, were in the area that same evening and strong evidence supports also the presence of French and American ones and probably even Italian ones.
There is a strong possibility that the DC-9 was shot down by mistake by a fighter from a friendly country during an air battle. At least a Mig was shot down that night and fell in the mountains of Calabria, not that far away.

Even centre-left Italian governments have chosen not to disclose information regarding this episode, information surely in their possession, although it is denied. Because it is understood that a crisi could follow compromising relations between countries that after all are on the same side.

Maybe, if the occasion might arise, the receiving end could hit back politically just to settle the score, but not in an official way and not showing a link between two eventual and distinc series of events.
Maybe the Italian position over the Achille Lauro/Sigonella crisis with the US was also about that.

It happens even among friends. I know it is a cynical argument, and it is and must be unacceptable to the relatives of innocent victims of byzarre incidents and power games. But one, if not touched by emotions, must look at these things realistically.

All the best everyone.

Henry's Fork
07-01-2007, 03:31 PM
I've become convinced that Israel did not attack the Liberty knowing that she was an American ship. So Israel is not an evil monster in that respect. I do think, however, that it was very bad form on the part of the pilots/torpedo boatmen to engage in a sustained attack on a ship they had not positively identified.

I think this incident is very similar to the incident in Iraq when US A-10's shot up a Brit APC.

If i recall, the Liberty opend up on the PT boats, thats why they fired all their torpedos at it.

Agreed, friendly fire seems to be a un-shakeable tragic part of war.

Henry's Fork
07-01-2007, 03:57 PM
Wrong, the Liberty returned fire at the PT boats, after they had machine gunned the Liberty's life boats. HAHAHALOLOLOL act of friendly fire, blue on blue......in this instance is ridiculous. Please read the affidavit from the investigating officer in the post by KB (bostondecloration) and then tell me it was blue on blue.....

You are starting to sound a little off. Take it easy bro.

Fante da mar
07-01-2007, 04:39 PM
Well, even the airline passangers are not resting in peace because the only truth made official does not convince anyone and finds no guilty party really and it would be more correct to say that the eventual fighters, whatever their nationality, got in the way of the airliner on a commercial route, but that's not the point.

Getting back to the subject matter, let us assume that there was a non official agreement between the US and Israel that the first would not an intrusion of the former in the military operation of the latter. I know that the US had not forbidden Israel from attacking but simply said that if they would strike first they would not go to their aid.

I even accept the fact the Israel striked first, if the chance would have been given to the Arab nations Israel could have been deafeated and invaded in a few days. Israel is trigger happy because its territory is so small and surrounded by hostiles. A military attack does not become an issue of political defeat, loss of territory but of very existence.

I mean, how would any other muscular nation behave in the same situation.

The americans "spying" on their allies is considered as an hostile act and the US intelligence realises that the Israeli would take it that way.
The Israelis attack deliberately. The US maybe even first thinks that it was the Egyptians but then realise that what happened is what the Israelis would not dare and decide to take the beating sacrificing their men.

Objective or subjective good or evil do not enter in certain discussion but I am not asking you to accept this argument and that logic but the point is that if that is what happend, your Govt accepted it.




The big difference is the airliner got in the way of friendly fire, The USS Liberty was singled out for destruction because it poised a threat to Israeli war plans. RIP to the airline passengers, something the Liberty crew still cant find from the US or Israel.

Fante da mar
07-01-2007, 04:45 PM
I made so many writing mistakes there, sorry in too much hurry but then off I must go

IDF_TANKER
07-01-2007, 05:09 PM
The big difference is the airliner got in the way of friendly fire, The USS Liberty was singled out for destruction because it poised a threat to Israeli war plans. RIP to the airline passengers, something the Liberty crew still cant find from the US or Israel.

I'm not going to dispute the facts(whatever we think they are) but I would like to point out the following: remember, that, as strange as it may sound today, at that time Israel was fighting for its survival. Nobody expected at the beginning of the war the kind of victory we had at its end. You have to make an effort and try to take a look at the events the way Israel did at that time.

The reason that that this event is perceived by a bystander(including you for this matter) as completely unexpected and thus so suspicious is because your mindset at that time was a peacetime one, while ours was of people at war. Again, we were fighting for our survival and in our perspective our surroundings was a war zone swarming with cruel enemy aspiring to destroy us.

IAF and IN were operating in the territory with high likelihood to encounter an enemy. It is not completely inconceivable that once a ship suspected as Egyptian one was detected it was more than enough to attack and sink it. You are talking about all the clear distinctive features that made this ship recognisable. I'm talking about soldiers attacking the (perceived)enemy - why do you think they even tried to read the signs on the ship board? Imagine torpedo boats commander seeing IAF attacking the ship(or vice versa) - for him it would be more than enough not to have any doubts about its identity.

You are talking about all the signs and features Liberty had making it easy to identify - who told you that IAF and IN personal were so well aware of them. I mean there were tens, maybe hundreds ships(Israeli and Egyptian) present in the theatre - do you really think that they would know/remember all of them so well that in the heat of the battle they actually could tell the difference..?

There always were a lot of friendly fire incidents during all the war. In 1982 two IDF armour battalions engaged a battle with ... each other. As a result three tanks were hit, 5 killed and more wounded. The battle continued until a tank commander of one battalion crossed running the battlefield climbed on one of the tanks in other battalion... At another occasion in the same war IAF destroyed whole IDF armour column. Just an example...

Beside this I can only add on behalf of Israel and myself in person, RIP to Liberty sailors. Whatever the reasons of this tragic incidents (I certainly hope this was an innocent error), I truly believe that you will hardly find today in Israel a single person who wouldn't express a deep sorrow about what happened.

Hollis
07-01-2007, 05:18 PM
There isn't anything to assume, facts speak for themselves the IDF with intent and purpose attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty. I'm not here to argue "what ifs", there is no "what if" just go to the post in this thread by KB and the 2 hot links, the one sworn statement by the investigating officer is an eye opener.....for anyone who wishes to learn the truth!


Jeepers this part we can all agree with, "There isn't anything to assume, facts speak for themselves the IDF with intent and purpose attacked and tried to sink"

NOW read your past posts, you added the ship was known, the radio communication clearly indicated that the ship was a UNKNOWN. You added why Israel wanted the USS Liberty Sunk...... Which was all speculatice and propaganda. So can you cut the BS.

More correct would be, "There isn't anything to assume, facts speak for themselves the IDF with intent and purpose attacked and tried to sink, what the IDF thought was a hostile ship."

The ship turned out to be the USS Liberty and was not a hostile ship.

TRY READING the voice transcripts.

The Crew stated what they saw. Yes, When someone shoots at you, for intents and purpose it sure seems deliberate.

I have seen friendly fire incidents. Two in my company and one in a sister company.

THERE is no pausable reason why the Israeli would have attacked their best ally. The Cold was hot and heavy, Egypt was a Ally of the Soviet Union.

The attack on the USS Liberty benefited the enemies of the US and Israel more than anyone else.

quellish
07-01-2007, 06:27 PM
Correct. Nothing new. Just plain confirmation, by the US government agency,
of exactly what Israel has been saying all along.

And for some people it not be satisfactory.

Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 06:43 PM
...?!!:roll:

Or it is only me?

Its not only you.

OMEGA7

"Don't believe what you read, and only half of what you see"

I have a question why did he told us to be why shouldn't we get this topic deeply?

I've been knew why did the dude living in the country where they doing as they likes to do . [u/]

[u]anything is being threaten by the Billy's living in that country .

so I think, I have to notice all of the govermental societies facts.and we will able to get them be no unkindness behavior to do. it is the true of making our living eachother in this world.

First it is clear the person is a none English born speaker, and is trying. Full marks for that. Or at lest speaks very poor English.

Whatever the case they wish to understand, and have questions.

1. Why should we not talk about, and understand the topic?

WE should, and with an open mind, and real understanding.

2. Why does Israel do as they wish?

It seems that way. The fact is they go over things just as many free nations do, but they always have one thing at the back of the mind (many). Self Preservation !


3. (I think) Why do they see everything as a threat to them?

Because for many years most everything was. Also you have to look at where they came from, and why they are there. A great many came from the east. Ukraine, West Russia. Very hard places to live at the time, and outside of the towns, and villages is the place bad things did in fact come from.

4. so I think,looking at the governmental agents facts,and we will able to understand this nasty business. By doing this we should be able to understand each other better.

I have no comment other then these statements are some of the most productive made so far.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 06:44 PM
I've become convinced that Israel did not attack the Liberty knowing that she was an American ship. So Israel is not an evil monster in that respect. I do think, however, that it was very bad form on the part of the pilots/torpedo boatmen to engage in a sustained attack on a ship they had not positively identified.

I think this incident is very similar to the incident in Iraq when US A-10's shot up a Brit APC.

Prob a wise conclusion.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 06:59 PM
The big difference is the airliner got in the way of friendly fire, The USS Liberty was singled out for destruction because it poised a threat to Israeli war plans. RIP to the airline passengers, something the Liberty crew still cant find from the US or Israel.


I think you are looking for something that is not there. The IDF attacked a great many things in the area those first two days.

These people (The IDF) where pumped. Most of the men doing the fighting it was the first time out. Even at that target ID training was very poor (hell it still is IMOPO ), but the IDF Air force had the best of any branch because of the mission, and having a higher amount of active duty people on hand. Then again boat identification was probable not very good.

Lests look at even a bigger picture. Did you happen to know that in 1967 the IDF Air Force attack a few IDF units? One artillery unit was just about wiped out (looked nothing at all like a Soviet one at all), a Armor, and Infantry unit had been attacked as well.

Also before the Liberty was attacked , the units doing the attack had Identified it as a target.

What does that mean? Well one you start attacking a target you do nothing more then try to destroy it.

In the first Gulf war a US Armor unit was doing a passage of lines. 4 US M-1 got destroyed by, the units behind them, also in M-1s firing at the rear of the M-1s in front of them. To me this was a far more unacceptable incident then the case of the Liberty.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:07 PM
THERE is no pausable reason why the Israeli would have attacked their best ally. The Cold was hot and heavy, Egypt was a Ally of the Soviet Union.

The attack on the USS Liberty benefited the enemies of the US and Israel more than anyone else.


One thing you need to understand. Israel in the minds of the people, and military has no allies. I could go on, and on as to why this is but in short it is because everyone at one point or another has let them down. This is not really true, but it looks that way in public. I could go on, and on about why, and how.

But you are correct. This was an error, and not an overt act. It was not an "planned attack" at any level of command, with the understanding that it was a US flagged ship. Unlike the North Korean attacks on our ships, nor the Communist attack on our Aircraft, nor the USSR attacks on Airliners. In those cases they had every idea of what they did, even before they did it.

DB-ERAUPilot
07-01-2007, 07:09 PM
Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable.


Is there any truth to this? if so I'd sure like to know about it...

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:11 PM
Youve got to be kidding......please tell me you are? If true my respect for Israel and its armed forces has dropped to "0".

I would have to question the so called source or the information. This is the internet, you can post anything you can think of. I am still looking for a picture of Elvis, Pope John Paul, and Mao cracking Fortune Cookies in a ***** bar in Frisco. I know it is out there, I just have to find it ;-)

Moledet
07-01-2007, 07:16 PM
Trace, American soldiers have a long history of making exactly this type of mistakes (just ask the Brits).

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:27 PM
They are professionals, touted as the best in the world, please, the pumped up story only holds water for a fly by and then a ID, not a full out attack that lasted close to an hour on a ship that was flying an American flag, with both Naval and Air Force units. Sorry to hear about the M-1's (blue on blue) but that line dosnt have anything to do with the USS Liberty and the outright murder of its crew. Lets hope you dont have to meet a family member of the USS Liberty and tell them that you dont think there loss matches up to a few M-1 shoting each other in the ass.

I think you are working under a very wrong understanding. Most of the active duty military of the IDF was, and is Drafted. In 1967 they did under 3 years active duty, and then out, on reserved status.

Now knowing that. They did very good. The IDF airforce did, and does a bang up job. Look at a map of Israel. They have to get aircraft in the air with less time then any nation on earth other the maybe Kuwait. Not easy, and very costly. Understanding where they live, the area, the income, etc, etc. They do very well, and THEY have not quit because of 50 years of terrorist attacks!

Moledet
07-01-2007, 07:30 PM
I meant friendly fire in general and not just attacks on the Brits, they are just the ones making fun of it the most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:34 PM
By the way the Pope John Paul crack marks you in my book as a religious bigot. I am a Catholic and take offense at your remark.

Well then you need to learn English! I never said anything about the Pope! As for you being a bigot, that is, and will be a personal problem you have, not me. I hope that make you feel all warm, and fuzzy at night.

BTW I Served in 2/3 Inf, 2/77 , 3/63, 1/34, 2/81, OCMI, and some other US units throughout the 70s, and 80s. What US military units did you provide Service in? BTW FYI I was trained by a Jesuit, a man I respected, and had a very deep friendship with. NOT that it is any of your business. BUT anyone that can make a comment like yours, is always suspect!

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:40 PM
And this information bears on the USS Liberty attack how? Just wondering.

Do You read what you post?

Originally Posted by Trace View Post
They are professionals, touted as the best in the world, please, the pumped up story only holds water for a fly by and then a ID, not a full out attack that lasted close to an hour on a ship that was flying an American flag, with both Naval and Air Force units. Sorry to hear about the M-1's (blue on blue) but that line dosnt have anything to do with the USS Liberty and the outright murder of its crew. Lets hope you dont have to meet a family member of the USS Liberty and tell them that you dont think there loss matches up to a few M-1 shoting each other in the ass.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 07:56 PM
USMC 6 years, a Jesuit trained boy, no wonder your F'ed Up. Pal it was you who placed Pope John Paul in a ***** bar in Frisco not me..... and you should really get some good catholic upbringing, Jesuit ha.

NOT as a school boy!

I did not place them. Read the post. Also learn what Professional means.

USMC 6 yrs ha. Well that tells a great deal.

500
07-01-2007, 08:51 PM
There isn't anything to assume, facts speak for themselves the IDF with intent and purpose attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty.
Liberty was attacked by two groups of jets: first Mirages and then Mysteres. Both groups were armed only with 30 mm cannons and napalm bombs and rockets which could not bring any serious damage to the ship.

Whether jets were armed with high explosive bombs Liberty would be sank within minutes. It unambiguously indicates that Israelis did not plan the attack on ship. Obviously jets were called from some ground attack operation.

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 09:48 PM
OK it seems like this is getting out of hand.

A few are seemingly misunderstanding the comments of others on purpose to further some kind of deluded agenda.

The aim of IMOPO seems to be to not allow others to the "new" information presented, and or not allow others to openly review, and post perceptions from their base understanding.

Hollis
07-01-2007, 10:03 PM
To those who are in Israel, Quellish stated;

"Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable."

Has anyone seen or heard of this exibition in a Museum in Israel? Is this another fabrication?

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 10:34 PM
To those who are in Israel, Quellish stated;

"Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable."

Has anyone seen or heard of this exibition in a Museum in Israel? Is this another fabrication?

Why do you post about indignation if you do not know, and then ask. Look at the face of the statement. Nothing about this is on the web (Google!). It is not even a CNN/Aljafar report. SO !

Hollis
07-01-2007, 11:17 PM
Gee Hollis these USS Liberty guys after 40 years still wont go away, most must be grandfathers by now and in there golden years all they have to do is sit around and spread PA propaganda (that is according to you) I mean they cant be telling the truth can they, you disregard the fact that they were there and you just read about it, them and most of all the US intelligence agencies that were in service at the time, diplomats, Intelligence chiefs, a host of who's who of the US Navy, USAF intell , and on and on infinite, we all are sitting around as grand-pa's spreading PA propaganda.

Trace, I never discounted the Crews versions. I do Question your honesty. I have been in friendly fire incidents, My own company opened fire on it's rear element. It was real, it was deliberate and it was a BIG F'In Mistake.

READ THE DAMN report. Information that the US kept secret for 40 years has been released. Information that answered questions that were only specualted on.

So what is your reason to keep hawking old speculations that has been proven to be erroneous?

Hollis
07-01-2007, 11:22 PM
Why do you post about indignation if you do not know, and then ask. Look at the face of the statement. Nothing about this is on the web (Google!). It is not even a CNN/Aljafar report. SO !


Hard, read what I asked, I have never heard of that (what quellish wrote), I asked if any Israeli on this forum has. I did not varify it or condmened it.

Just because I did not find it on google does not mean I did my search right or wrong, does not mean it is not on google or is.


As you said, "SO!" So I asked.

BTW DO you understand what a question is?

HardThunder
07-01-2007, 11:28 PM
Hard, read what I asked, I have never heard of that (what quellish wrote), I asked if any Israeli on this forum has. I did not varify it or condmened it.

Just because I did not find it on google does not mean I did my search right or wrong, does not mean it is not on google or is.


As you said, "SO!" So I asked.

BTW DO you understand what a question is?

You need to read what you posted then!

You made the statements, I did not misread anything. Do I need to repost what you posted?

Hollis
07-01-2007, 11:31 PM
You need to read what you posted then!

You made the statements, I did not misread anything. Do I need to repost what you posted?


LOL, go back, I quoted quellish statement, I did not make that statment.


I asked if any Israelis knew anything about it...... <-- what I asked.

Big hint, the first two lines of the post you are talking about:

"Originally Posted by HOLLiS http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2604981#post2604981)
To those who are in Israel, Quellish stated;

Hollis
07-01-2007, 11:53 PM
And if you were in a Marine Company that delibertly opened fire on its onw rear lines I want to hear about that, were and when it happened........all the scuttlebutt.......


OK.... , the Company India 3/3 around July 1969, company size move on a large horse ridge near "Mutter's Ridge", Quang Tri Provence, RVN. One Marine was wounder, his hand. The front element moving in one direction saw the rear element movingin the opposite direction, a fire fight ensued, until things could bet sorted out.

Early July 1969, arty Short round was accused, it was actually a frag that was thrown, hit a tree and bounced back killing another Marine,

Early August 1969, 9 rounds for arty hits the CP group of Lima 3/3 Killing 3 Marines and 2 Corpsman. This happend a few days after E 2/3 was over runned. We went back to Mutter's Ridge to recover bodies and retake the position.

Go find your own F'in scuttle butt.

Famous Marines, Kilo 3/3, Lt Oliver North

Captain of Lima 3/3 Captian Krulick who became CMC.

Hollis
07-02-2007, 12:32 AM
Trace, here is the site, From NSA. That you called what?

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

"On 08 June 2007, the National Security Agency (NSA) finalized the review of all material relative to the 08 June 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. This additional release adds to the collection of documents and audio recordings and transcripts previously posted to the site on 02 July 2003."

Hollis
07-02-2007, 01:29 AM
Tsk tsk tsk.....touchy aren't we....never heard it called Company India its usually India Company and whats that about scuttlebutt, scuttlebutt are rumors, stories going around the base, you don't find it you listen to it, but any good Marine would know that, wouldn't he Hollis. Great recall though almost as if you had it written down some where. Good recall........

But this has nothing to do with the super secret report the US government released after 40 years that you keep talking about. Have you got a title or site I can read it at?

Well this old fart is of to bed.

By the way what was your MOS. you sound grunt

OK I'm sorry I didnt see your post with the link to the NSA site, by the way did you read that it doesn't make any findings it only releases the information in the form of cables and other transmit ions, so I guess you read every thing on the NSA site and made your decision, congrats Hollis theres aship load of cable and information.


Trace I left out a comma, your a classic twit,

Company, India

HardThunder
07-02-2007, 02:03 AM
You two need to get a room, you are the perfect match.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29992&d=1183355946

Fante da mar
07-02-2007, 03:20 AM
I read trough quickly, I find this blog interesting but there is never enough time, I missed how many of you are or have been in the military. Any officers? A bit of advise to some of you, if you care. Keep the emotions and the adrenaline down, you are not in noman's land.

I beg your pardon trace, but have you or your family suffered a personal loss in that incident? Otherwise I would have to think that you are ideologically motivated in your pursue.

I know this might upset you, but maybe not so there it is.

IDF_TANKER
07-02-2007, 03:43 AM
To those who are in Israel, Quellish stated;

"Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable."

Has anyone seen or heard of this exibition in a Museum in Israel? Is this another fabrication?

I never heard about it but I never was in Israeli naval museum. The idea that something like that is indeed has place seems to be simply outrageous to me. I really would like to see some evidence supporting this statement. :roll:

[edit]
I just went to the Naval Museum site. Here is all I found(unfortunately no link in English):

http://www.amutayam.org.il/Articles/Article.asp?CategoryID=344&ArticleID=525


3 טרפדות ומטוסי חיל האוויר תקפו בשוגג את ה- 'ליברטי', אונית ביון אמריקאית , שזוהתה בטעות כאונית אספקה של חיל הים המצרי, מול חופי צפון סיני. לאמריקאים 34הרוגים ו- 75 פצועים.
The literal translation:

Three torpedo [boats] and IAF planes attacked mistakenly "Liberty", US intel ship, which was mistakenly identified as supply ship of Egyptian navy, near north Sinai coast. Americans had 34 killed and 75 wounded.
Does it look like an heroic act that we are proud of?!!

[edit]
Another link I found in Israeli Navy Fellowship site:
http://www.hi-teach.com/infohub/Main.asp (the last link in the "Attachment" list)
I'd be happy to translate it later today, when I have time...

Slug69
07-02-2007, 06:07 AM
I can't believe how many posts this thread has.

Cast your minds back to what things were like back then. All radio comms only, this report by the CIA is just what they can figure out within 5 days! While the ship had just offloaded it's dead and wounded and making preps to move to better harbour for bigger repairs.

The Navy hadn't started their inquiry yet.

This release is just like some big tease...complete worthless to all of us.

All of us can agree on one thing, the crew did a magnificent job in saving their ship.

An earlier poster mentioned the aircraft couldn't have sunk it with rockets...IIRC a lot of aircraft in WW2 used rockets to sink merchant shipping.

Israel used Napalm on the ship as well. Napalms sole existence is to kill human beings isn't it?

HardThunder
07-02-2007, 07:54 AM
Israel used Napalm on the ship as well. Napalms sole existence is to kill human beings isn't it?

No it burns things. Very bad to have fire on a ship, and if you think about it, a ship is something of a bathtub, only thing is it is to keep water out, not in. Having dripping fire coming down from the top is in no way good news.

mi35d
07-02-2007, 09:41 AM
<<<Won't stop the controversy, ofc. Nobody is more deaf than he who doesn't want to hear...>>>

Nor so blind as those who fail see the truth.

What parts of the event are so hard for Israelis to understand?

- The ship was in International waters
- The ship Identification was clearly visible
- She was flying a presentation standard - a flag far larger than is required by international naval law.
- Israeli forces committed several acts of violence that violated international law to include the shooting of lifeboats, fire/rescue personnel and the use of napalm.

To shrug it off as a mistaken attack by an overzealous fighter pilot is pure crap. One attack? Possibly. Two? Doubtful. Further attacks by patrol boats - beyond excusing.

Read, "Assault on the USS Liberty". Highly detailed account from an officer who was serving on the ship.

<<<I think this incident is very similar to the incident in Iraq when US A-10's shot up a Brit APC.>>>

Not even close. You're talking about one isolated attack as compared to several hours of coordinated attacks by multiple aircraft and attack boats. This isn't a quick decision that went wrong.

Hollis
07-02-2007, 11:56 AM
You two need to get a room, you are the perfect match.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29992&d=1183355946


Ok, that is my statement that contained Quellish statement. Below is the same as you posted:

To those who are in Israel, Quellish stated;

QUOTE MARKS, beginning of quellish's statement ------> "Let's put the intentions of the Israelis at the time aside.
Motor Torpedo Boat 203 was one of the fast attack craft that torpedoed Liberty and machine gunned lifeboats as they were put in the water. Boat 203's wheel, and the remains of several of the lifeboats, are hanging in an Israeli naval museum along with the story of the "heroic" mission.

THAT is not satisfactory. For an ally of the United States to *proudly* honor killing Americans - deliberate or otherwise - is completely unacceptable." <---- Quote Mark, End of quellish's Quote

Has anyone seen or heard of this exibition in a Museum in Israel? Is this another fabrication? <----- My Question


Now do you see the Quellish's statement in my post, then my question?

Hollis
07-02-2007, 12:09 PM
I never heard about it but I never was in Israeli naval museum. The idea that something like that is indeed has place seems to be simply outrageous to me. I really would like to see some evidence supporting this statement. :roll:

[edit]
I just went to the Naval Museum site. Here is all I found(unfortunately no link in English):

http://www.amutayam.org.il/Articles/Article.asp?CategoryID=344&ArticleID=525

The literal translation:
Does it look like an heroic act that we are proud of?!!

[edit]
Another link I found in Israeli Navy Fellowship site:
http://www.hi-teach.com/infohub/Main.asp (the last link in the "Attachment" list)
I'd be happy to translate it later today, when I have time...


Thanks for the heads up. I did not think his statement was true. I remember a Phoney interview, that was suppose to have been from the Pilot that attacked the USS Liberty that was circulated as being the truth. The phoney document made it look like it was a deliberate attack on the part of the Israel.

All one needs to do is to read the transcirpt of the Pilots communication with control, or listen to his coversation and it is obvious the Israeli did not know it was a American ship.

Moledet
07-02-2007, 02:00 PM
Let me quote Gad Shomron:
"...if it was so important for Israel to destroy the Liberty why was the attack stopped before it was destroyed and its entire crew killed? In addition, what interest did Israel have hiding its intentions from the US that fully backed it, for attacking Jordan and Syria? And you need a twisted brain to to think that Israel in order to cover the killing of POWs will get in a conflict with the US and the nuclear equipped 6th fleet. By the way, after it became clear the Liberty was an American ship, there was a big sense of relief in the Israeli high command. They were afraid that it's a Soviet ship with all the possible complications that might follow such an attack.
Here it might be the place to compare that non stop discussion in the Liberty case and the complete forgetfulness in other tragic naval error. In March 1987, at the time of the Iran-Iraq war, the american destroyer Stark was surprisingly attacked while defending oil tankers route in the Persian gulf. 35 sailors were killed and dozens injured from French Exocet that the Iraqis launched on the vessel.
Iraq of Saddam Hussein was then cherished in Washington, as being the cause that stopped the Khomeini revolution from spreading. And so, after Baghdad asked nicely for forgiveness-"misidentification" said the Iraqi spokesmen-the story was removed from the headlines.
And just the Liberty story refuses to die. Why? I personally have a theory that is based on the known sentence "Jews are news especially when they are spies". Yes, I know it's not a scientific fact, but the unstopping discussion about the Liberty isn't rational either."

Anyway, here's the NSA page about the Liberty:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00002.wav
Recording of Israeli helicopter pilots talking with the high command that don't seem to know who are these sailors, they say if they are Egyptian take them off in El-Arish if they are American bring them to Lod.

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00003.wav
The first helicopter pilot communicates with the torpedo boats, he can not see an American flag.

HardThunder
07-02-2007, 03:27 PM
Yes it is all some great plot, to undermine the will of the US people. We should not spend any time with the issues of Terror, it is a Jewish fabrication, and has nothing to do with the US.

The North Korean attack on our ships should simply be forgotten, as they did happen, and they said they did it. The attack by China (Communist) of our aircraft should also simply be forgotten (as Uncle Joe would have said " No World wide Jewish plot in those" ).

And this new information should be discarded as contrived by the world wide Jewish plot to undermine the US people, and steal their pure bodily fluids through making us drink Chlorinated water ( I only drink pure Grain Alcohols, and Pure rain water Mandrake , you know why I only drink pure Grain Alcohols, and Pure rain water Mandrake? )

What ever! It Happen, and it was a bad, very bad thing, and no one is covering up anything. No plot, no World wide order. It happen, that is called war. War is a very messy business. NO matter how good you are, how well trained you are, it is the bullet you don't see coming, that is the one that kills you.


Now back to Dr. Strangelove
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

Mandrake:

Well, no I... I can't say I have, Jack.

Ripper:

Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?

Mandrake:

Well I... I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.

Ripper:

On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.

Mandrake:

Oh, ah, yes. I don't quite.. see what you're getting at, Jack.

Ripper:

Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, you realize that.. seventy percent of you is water.

Mandrake:

Uhhh God...

Ripper:

And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.

Mandrake:

Yes. chuckles nervously

Ripper:

You beginning to understand?

Mandrake:

Yes. chuckles. begins laughing/crying quietly

Ripper:

Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?

Mandrake:

Well it did occur to me, Jack, yes.

Ripper:

Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?

Mandrake:

Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes.

Ripper:

Well do you now what it is?

Mandrake:

No. No, I don't know what it is. No.

Ripper:

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

Window in the office is shot through by automatic weapons fire.

Ripper:

Walks to window and shouts Two can play at this game soldier!

more rounds ricochet through the office, cutting down the overhead desk lamp.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html

OK now back to the post of these new documents, and no more man from mars bitting off peoples heads please.

Moledet
07-02-2007, 04:11 PM
I have no idea who Gad Shamron is, and I really dont care. I did notice that he played the "Jewish card", which I guess is supposed to make all us goyum (sp?) run away feeling bad. This is as important to those Americans who care as any problem in Israel is to you Mr Shamron, and shame on him for belittling the murder of the 34 Liberty members. Mudding up the water with stories of the Stark is to me just another distraction from getting at the truth, nice try Moledet but I'm not buying his pile of BS.

Who knows when, or how, or by who those recordings were made.

I guess after 40 years of half truths and lies from the IDF the people of Isreal havre been fooled as much as the US public. all I can say is than God the Liberty survivors continue the fight to expose the coverup.
Gad Shomron was an intelligence officer and later a Mossad agent, now he's a journalist. The recordings were intercepted by the US at the time of the incident.

I think I finished arguing with you, if you wish to believe your theory than go ahead. I can understand the frustration of some of the Liberty crew, the way they were handled by their government was disrespectful and it caused them to be very bitter toward Israel and the US government. They went through a tough experience, loosing 34 comrades is no joke, but it's time for them to move on.

IDF_TANKER
07-02-2007, 05:00 PM
Well I'll tell you what Moledet here's the link to the
http://www.ussliberty.org/index.html

Liberty site you go ahead go to the guest book and tell the survivors its time for them to move on I'm sure they would like to hear from you and Mr. Shomron the ex Mossad agent and journalist.....like either profession doesn't require lying.

Accusing everybody to be a liar is definitely an ultimate winning argument. So far every argument against your theory was disregarded by you as BS and every source as a liar. Anyway, moledet is right, this discussion has exhausted itself.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 05:37 PM
christ, how many times have US shot down or killed UK personnel in warzone AO, we shot down UK choppers close to Basra for gods sake, and there were no conspiracy theories or sinister motives, just friendly fire that occurs in every war. why is this case still generating such malicious conspiracies and doubts??

the CIA docs further proves what 11 other inquiries all concluded, a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire. end of story, im sick of hearing about this.

500
07-02-2007, 05:42 PM
She also took a torpedo hit that blew a 40 foot hole in her, remembr this was not just an airstrike it also included the Israeli Navy with 2 fast patrol boats. 30+ dead 120+ wounded and the only thing you can comment on is they "could not bring any serious damage to the ship".

I will repeat simple facts:

1) If planes were armed with high explosive bombs, they would sink Liberty in minutes.
2) Fortunaly none out of two groups of jets was armed with high explosive bombs. They had only napalm and 30 mm cannons which could never sink the ship.

the obvious conclusion is that Israelis did not plan the attack in advance. Jets were rushed in hurry from some ground attack mission.


Man your all heart..........I must control myself now because the more I read your post the madder I get.........and I dont feel like being baned because of you.
You are mad because you cant answer my simple argument. Try to contact your conspiracy buddies, may be they will help you. But i highly doubt.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 05:43 PM
Sick of hearing about it? well then move on, go to another thread. simple as that.

ok dude, dont forget to include the deliberate killing of jesus and santa clause that was all pre-planned and efficiently executed by the israelis, because as we all know, theres nothing they love to do better than kill their american allies.

you can show a man all the evidence in the world, but a pre-mediated and formed agenda towers above all.

IDF_TANKER
07-02-2007, 05:52 PM
You see thats the whole point, the entire cover up was a lie, so my by calling the IDF liars, well, thats the truth. How else would you put it? If some one lies what title have they earned? .....Ta Da..You guessed it "liar".
Man...:cantbeli:


Moldet never put forth an argument. all he did was quote some Mossad agent, who said.... ..why...why would we....such a thing.....Jews spy's....Saddam...ship... that was no argument no facts were brought to the table...I keep posting links, excerpts, and speeches by the past Joint Chief of Staff....list over 30 US government officials who say the thing was murder and a cover up.... and you have the nads to call all of this "MY THEORY".
So I can bring 30 Israeli officials which will say the opposite - and then what..? And if I bring 31 Israeli officials - then I win?


I think you guys are finished with this not because I cant bring in the facts, I think its because you cant dispute those facts.........
The facts are pretty much indisputable (maybe except your last source, which being intelligence officer, for some reason is absolutely lie-proof unlike our intelligence officer..), the discussion so far was concentrated on what you can conclude from these facts...

kamaz
07-02-2007, 05:52 PM
the 2 mirage pilots who strafed the ship had over 24 hours non-stop combat duty, no break in 24 hours of fighting off the egyptians with non-stop sorties.

you ask any pilot (and i can tell this personally as a pilot myself) that after 24-hours of continuous operations, you will not see things the way you would see them rested up and coherent, like the big american flag argument.

every conspiracy drone is insisting that they shouldve IDd the ship due to the big american flag, forgetting that while the pilots may have done a flyover, they probably werent looking at the flag but at armaments and cargo on the ship, and dozens of other things, where IFF is not the primary thing on your worn out mind and body.

flying a combat fighter for over 6 hours is exhausting, not to mention 24. some people will never be satisfied with any explanation, due to an agenda. not even gonna argue, pointless.

for some reason its only israelis who have sinister motives and pre-planned malicious intent, no one else. what else is new.

Hollis
07-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Man...:cantbeli:



LOL exactly, I decided to place the goof ball on ignore. I think someone else's assessment of him early in this post is probably "Spot on".

tanks_alot
07-02-2007, 06:22 PM
Trace, i've heard of conspiracy theories that range from Israel wanting to destroy the USS Liberty in order to cover up the supposed murder of a 1,000 Egyptian POWs up to full blown ones that claim that this was a joint US-Israeli plan designed to kill the entire crew in order to later pin it on the Egyptians, which would allow the US to intervene and topple Nassar's regime.
so you claim it was in order to take over the Golan heights, great.

what all of these theories have in common is the lack of actual proof and the fact that the US goverment, the CIA, the NSA and all other US inquiries have accepted the Israeli version and apologies for this tragedy.

i never take part into these USS Liberty threads that pop up every once in a while and i have no intention to further argue with you.
however considering your own country and goverment disagrees with you, you might want to be a little less arrogant and stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar.
also trying to play on emotions without actual facts will not help you much either.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 06:59 PM
lol, 11 CIA, USN, Pentagon and NSA investigations all pointing to the same conclusion. Man, those IDF/Mossad/Zionist tentacles are spread far and control so much!

Yet, for some unknown reason, this was all part of the great conspiracy to kill American servicemen. This is the definition of delusion.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 07:05 PM
Facts.... ARE YOU people blind. Go to the links read the reports read the affidavit swore to by the Navy Officer concerning the attack, and then tell me about actual facts, which by the way not one has come from "your" side, just name calling, snide remarks and making small the US deaths.

NO ONE is making light of the US deaths, except your idiotic and arrogant accusations based on your predetermined and agenda driven ideology.

Israel repaid the victim's families compensation and offered apologies on every level, for a clear incident of friendly fire in a warzone, a small nation surrounded by 3 large enemies with battle-fatigued pilots. this is my last post to your idiotic accusations and melodrama. have fun playing with your tinfoil hat.

deadtired
07-02-2007, 07:17 PM
the 2 mirage pilots who strafed the ship had over 24 hours non-stop combat duty, no break in 24 hours of fighting off the egyptians with non-stop sorties.

you ask any pilot (and i can tell this personally as a pilot myself) that after 24-hours of continuous operations, you will not see things the way you would see them rested up and coherent, like the big american flag argument.

every conspiracy drone is insisting that they shouldve IDd the ship due to the big american flag, forgetting that while the pilots may have done a flyover, they probably werent looking at the flag but at armaments and cargo on the ship, and dozens of other things, where IFF is not the primary thing on your worn out mind and body.

flying a combat fighter for over 6 hours is exhausting, not to mention 24. some people will never be satisfied with any explanation, due to an agenda. not even gonna argue, pointless.

for some reason its only israelis who have sinister motives and pre-planned malicious intent, no one else. what else is new.

Even if there was a lack of malicious intent toward the US, even if there was no premeditiation, it is still a shocking display of unprofessionalism on the part of the pilots to carry out such a prolonged attack on a ship they they did not bother to positively identify. As you said in an earlier post, the US has shot up Brit armor on several occasions, and when that happens the Brits raise hell (and rightly so) about the actions of the pilots. I see no reason why the US should not do the same in this case. Since apparently the Israelis did not deliberately attack a US ship, I can only conlcude that the attck was carried out due to negligence and the part of the Israeli pilots. Thats why I'm mad.

500
07-02-2007, 07:25 PM
Repeating yourself until the cows come home does not a argument make, the aircraft were used to keep the crew on board my strafing and napalming the deck giving time for the fast boats to move in for the kill is one possibility,
I repeated myself because u did not an answer first time. Each Mirage could carry 4 tonns of bombs which is enough to sink Liberty several times. Liberty was extremely easy target for the jets. What the point to make the show with napalm and cannons? This would only give time for alert and asking help.


secondly have you ever seen movies from WWII were US Hellcats and Corsairs MACHINE GUN Japanese ships until the explode or sink? And thats with.50 inch not something as massive as 30MM. A MM cannon that was used by the IDF AF is one big weapon more then enough to cause heavy structural damage.

And now thats all the time I have to waste on you silly post. Bye Bye
Sinking 4500 tonn ship with 30 mm cannons? Really, bye bye. I've realised that I cant expect any serious argumentation from you.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 07:29 PM
Even if there was a lack of malicious intent toward the US, even if there was no premeditiation, it is still a shocking display of unprofessionalism on the part of the pilots to carry out such a prolonged attack on a ship they they did not bother to positively identify. As you said in an earlier post, the US has shot up Brit armor on several occasions, and when that happens the Brits raise hell (and rightly so) about the actions of the pilots. I see no reason why the US should not do the same in this case. Since apparently the Israelis did not deliberately attack a US ship, I can only conlcude that the attck was carried out due to negligence and the part of the Israeli pilots. Thats why I'm mad.

and thats fine, US has every right to question the competency and professionalism of those pilots. Whats not right is to insist that there was a malicious intent and pre-meditated murder motive to a myriad of invented reasons, after numerous investigations all reveal otherwise.

this is more than a simple accusation. UK may have questioned our professionalism when we shot down 2 of their clearly marked and visible choppers with Hawk missiles, but they never repeatedly claimed that we did this for a reason, and we pre-meditated murder of british personnel, as some here claim israel was doing.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 07:30 PM
yawn.....I would answer but, I dont speak gibberish. (scratches **** and moves on).



apparently you dont speak common english either. nor have any sensible reading comprehension. not least bit surprising.

deadtired
07-02-2007, 07:35 PM
and thats fine, US has every right to question the competency and professionalism of those pilots. Whats not right is to insist that there was a malicious intent and pre-meditated murder motive to a myriad of invented reasons, after numerous investigations all reveal otherwise.

this is more than a simple accusation. UK may have questioned our professionalism when we shot down 2 of their clearly marked and visible choppers with Hawk missiles, but they never repeatedly claimed that we did this for a reason, and we pre-meditated murder of british personnel, as some here claim israel was doing.

We agree then. Israel gets off the hook (except the pilots/torpedoboatmen, of course) like you want, and I can still be pissed off about the incident, like I want. I can live with that.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 07:40 PM
We agree then. Israel gets off the hook (except the pilots/torpedoboatmen, of course) like you want, and I can still be pissed off about the incident, like I want. I can live with that.

ok lol, i can sleep soundly tonight then!

Hollis
07-02-2007, 07:41 PM
We agree then. Israel gets off the hook (except the pilots/torpedoboatmen, of course) like you want, and I can still be pissed off about the incident, like I want. I can live with that.


I think that is pretty normal in many ways, when Army arty hit Lima Co. CP group, Killing 5, some where very pissed and stayed pissed. Sooner or later it is much more healthier to put it to rest and move on. The same goes for old enemies.

kamaz
07-02-2007, 08:04 PM
USS Liberty "1"
IDF "0"
.


what an effin idiot.

Hollis
07-02-2007, 08:10 PM
what an effin idiot.


I think Ngati needs to meet this .........

2Sheds_Jackson
07-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Lets try to be civil in here. It's great to see people vigorously defending their positions - but let's not get nasty about it.

I'm an ex-SIGINT guy myself, so I've always had an interest in this incident. I worked the KAL007 shoot-down crisis in '83 - and within about 16 hours we even knew what the cockpit crew had for dinner. So what the gov't says is "unavailable" is probably better interpreted as "unfavorable...and not going to be released for 100 years" IMHO.

But I don't know, and there's no way for me to know. There could have been 20 different motivations and/or screwups involved. Knowing the conditions the attack took place under, it just strains credulity to think the ship wasn't positively ID'd...but again, that's just my opinion. I just don't think it's very productive to get so worked up about something that has been effectively buried by all governments involved.

Hollis
07-02-2007, 10:25 PM
2 Shed, on ship identification. I think some issues need to be discussed.

1st, The USS Liberty was a converted Merchantman.

2nd, how many ships and types sail in the Mediterranean.

3rd, How many USN ships are there.

4th all of this means id many not be as easy as one thinks. Mistakes in recognition is not that uncommon.


What seems to have been needed was better communication between the US Navy and the Israelis.

During the gulf war, a son of a friend of mine, his Humvee was taken out by friendly fire. As I mentioned previously my own company front and rear element got into a firefight, when we were moving on a horse shoe ridge, they where heading in the opposite direction. We also knew the only other people out there were NVA.

Even with today's much better communication and networking FF still happens.

OMEGA7
07-03-2007, 11:25 AM
Again a nice try to muddy the waters with BS, the IDF/AF flew a recon over the Liberty for at least 2 hours prior to the Attack. the attack from the air lasted at least 20 minutes, the fast boat attack lated another 25 minutes while they machine gunned the crew boats. so your going to ask us to believe the IDF could not ID the Liberty with the HUGE US flag flying for over 3 hours of recon and attack?

Its none other than AMERICAN GREAT WORKS. awesome for the american national liberty was ....

OMEGA7
07-03-2007, 11:30 AM
To the pack of you who are disbelievers, or prefer to live with there head in the sand I give you.........

(By the way not one iota of evidence has been produced to prove what is written here as wrong. Or a matter of fact anything I've said, you just ain't got no game, night kids. )

USS Liberty "1"
IDF "0"

And since I am only dealing with myopic Hollis and some other Brazil-nut I am done......


[quote]


War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967



Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005.



This report of war crimes committed against U.S. military personnel is submitted to the Honorable Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Department of Defense Directive Number 5810.01B (29 March 2004) [1] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn1).
This Report is filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a California non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting on behalf of the surviving crewmembers of USS Liberty.


Background

On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn2) in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.[3] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn3)
Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn4) (including three civilians)[5] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn5), the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.[6] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn6) The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap[7] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn7).
Israel acknowledged the following facts without qualification:


a. USS Liberty was an American ship, hence a neutral vis-à-vis the June 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors.[8] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn8)b. USS Liberty remained in international waters at all times on June 8, 1967[9] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn9).c. The attacking Israeli forces never made a positive identification of the nationality of USS Liberty before unleashing deadly force in their attack on the ship.[10] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn10)At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing "a US Navy cargo type ship," just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings "GTR-5".[11] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn11)This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded immediately to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.[12] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn12)
Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty’s position and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.[13] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn13)
At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted Janes’ Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research ship.[14] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn14)
From 0900 hours on June 8, 1967, until the time of the attack five hours later, USS Liberty maintained a speed of approximately five knots and a generally westerly-northwesterly course.[15] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn15)
At 1400 hours, while approximately 17 miles off the Gaza coast, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading.[16] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn16)
Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm. [17] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn17)
During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming[18] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn18)
The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders.[19] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn19)
After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. [20] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn20) Twenty-six Americans in addition to the eight who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.
Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn21)In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to "thousands" of .50 caliber machine gun holes.
Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn22)
Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn23)
Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order "prepare to abandon ship."[24] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn24) This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched.[25] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn25)
The defenseless crew, initially unable to report their plight or summon assistance and with only themselves to rely upon, fought heroically to save themselves and their ship. In recognition of their effort in this single action, they were ultimately awarded collectively one Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars (with "V" device), nine Navy Commendation Medals, and two hundred and four Purple Hearts. In addition, the ship was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.
By patching together different systems, the ship’s radio operators had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present in the Mediterranean.[26] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn26)Upon receipt of that message the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to the aid of USS Liberty.[27] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn27) The reported attacking aircraft were declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy them upon arrival.[28] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn28)The rules of engagement, authorizing destruction of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft "in the clear" (i.e., they were not encrypted).
Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance.[29] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn29) At the same time, an Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet[30] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn30) and rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.[31] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn31)
At about the same time as the cessation of the torpedo boat attack, Israeli attack helicopters arrived over the ship.[32] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn32) Survivors report that the helicopters were packed with men in combat battle dress. The Captain of USS Liberty gave the order to "prepare to repel boarders"[33] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn33)but the helicopters departed without attempting to land their troops.[34] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn34)
The official position of the United States of America concerning these events, as contained in a diplomatic note[35] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn35) by Secretary of State Rusk addressed to the Israeli Ambassador is set forth, in relevant part, below:
"Washington, June 10, 1967.
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador's Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty,
. . .
In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.
The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. . . . The U.S.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.
. . . the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State."
There has been no statement in the last thirty-eight years by the United States government reversing or amending this formal position.
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief Military Prosecutor, immediately following the attack, filed formal charges recommending court martial proceedings against a number of Israeli military personnel.[36] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn36)Prior to the start of court martial proceedings, the IDF turned the matter over to an examining judge to confirm that the prosecution should go forward. The examining judge disagreed with United States position that the attack was "an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life" and announced his finding that:
"Yet I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify the committal [sic] of anyone for trial." [37] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn37)
As a result of this blanket absolution, no one in the Israeli government or military has received so much as a reprimand for their involvement in the attack,[38] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn38)much less the punishment demanded by the United States ("the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State").
Within 24 hours of the attack, the United States Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry into that attack – a standard investigative procedure reserved for such serious events or circumstances. This procedure was unusual in only one respect – the President and members appointed to the Court of Inquiry by the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), headquartered in London, were directed orally by the appointing authority to conduct and complete their investigative proceedings within one week – a most unusual requirement in light of the nature and magnitude of the events they were ordered to investigate.
Convening initially in London, the Court proceeded immediately to the Mediterranean and conducted its inquiry both aboard USS Liberty as she limped under escort to Malta, and in succeeding days as she lay in drydock there. Concluding their inquiries there, the President of the Court, with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who had been appointed as Counsel to the Court, and with a Navy court reporter who had been assigned from the London headquarters to assist, returned to London on June 16, 1967 (eight days after the attack), with their results.
At London, the Navy court reporter supervised the final production of a written record of the Court’s proceedings and findings – a document over 600 typewritten pages in length. On the afternoon of June 17, 1967, that record of the Court’s proceedings was delivered to the senior Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer on the CINCUSNAVEUR staff for his review and recommendation to the appointing authority concerning his required endorsement and action upon the Court’s proceedings and record. The CINCUSNAVEUR Staff Judge Advocate thus charged with that review – in full compliance and accord with standard Navy requirements and practice – turned immediately to his detailed examination and consideration of the record. He continued that process steadily into the early morning hours of June 18, 1967, then after a four hour rest break resumed his review at 6:00 AM on June 18th.
In the midforenoon of June 18th an emissary from his Commander, the appointing authority, appeared and inquired of the Staff Judge Advocate concerning the status of his review and when it might be expected to be completed. The Staff Judge Advocate advised that he had by then read only about a third of the record – that there were many clerical and typographical flaws in the record that should be remedied before it was formally forwarded to the high governmental authorities who undoubtedly awaited it – that, more importantly, the reviewer had not yet been able to find, in the parts of the record he had so far reviewed, testimony or other evidence to support some of the Court’s stated conclusions – and that he could not yet estimate when he could complete his review and recommendations but was continuing to devote himself solely to that task.
The emissary from the appointing authority departed with that information then returned about 20 minutes later with the message that CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority had directed him to come and get the Court’s record from the Staff Judge Advocate and bring it back to the appointing authority. The Staff Judge Advocate accordingly surrendered the record to the emissary exactly as he had received it; he was neither then nor later asked for any of his work or opinions so far; and he had no further contact with the Court of Inquiry or its results at any time in his active Navy career.[39] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn39)
The records of the Navy Department reveal that the written record of proceedings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack upon USS Liberty was formally submitted by the President of the Court of Inquiry to CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority by a written letter dated 18 June 1967, the very day that the record had been withdrawn by the appointing authority from his Staff Judge Advocate. The written record also reveals that the appointing authority, on that same day, placed upon that record of the Court’s proceedings, a five-page First Endorsement, transmitting that Record to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in Washington as required by the Navy’s investigative procedures.[40] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn40)
Mr. Secretary, it is respectfully submitted that, even based solely upon the facts and circumstances outlined above, the Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty – the sole official investigation by the United States Government into that attack – was deficient and prejudiced, even at its outset, by the unreasonable haste imposed informally by the appointing authority. In addition, the processing of that Court’s hasty result was further compromised by its peremptory withdrawal from its initial and prescribed legal review in the field, and its hurried transmission to the seat of the U.S. Government under cover of a purported official endorsement that could not conceivably have been based upon even a cursory complete review of even the hasty work of the Navy Court of Inquiry. Inexplicably, the Court record was classified Top Secret and withheld from public scru-tiny for many years.
In addition to all of that, however, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who was appointed to serve as Counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry – the officer charged with certifying the authenticity of the Court’s record – has examined a copy of the record of that Court of Inquiry that has since been released by the Government under the Freedom of Information Act and has ****ounced it a fraud, and not the record that he had certified and submitted [41] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn41). Furthermore, the President of the Court of Inquiry, following his departure from London with the record on 18 June 1967, his personal delivery of the record to officials in Washington, and his return to his regular duty post in Italy, informed the officer who had served as Counsel to the Court of Inquiry that the Court’s record of its proceedings had been altered, in his presence, by civilian Government attorneys following its submission. [42] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn42)
The Central Intelligence Agency issued an "interim" report on the attack, dated June 13, 1967 (five days after the attack and five days before the apparent completion of the Navy’s abbreviated Court of Inquiry). The heavily redacted copy of the CIA’s report that has been released to the public does not state a conclusion, but suggests that, based on the information available as of the date of the report, the Israeli forces may not have known that they were attacking an American ship.[43] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn43)
Writing in his memoirs, Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence at the time of the attack, explained that the Central Intelligence Agency undertook a "final" investigation after more evidence became available, and he offered the following information concerning the CIA’s final finding:[44] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn44)
"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the U.S. . . .I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack." [Emphasis added]
Director Helms was not the only administration official who remained convinced that the attack was deliberate. In 1990, in his memoirs, Secretary of State Rusk observed:[45] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn45)
"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. 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."
Similarly, Clark M. Clifford, Counsel to the President at the time of the attack, recalled:[46] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn46)
"I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions...."
The then-General Counsel for the Department of Defense, attorney Paul C. Warnke, opined:[47] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn47)
"I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it."
The Executive Branch of the United States Government undertook no further review of the attack. Similarly, the United States Congress has never investigated the attack, making it the only attack on a United States Navy ship involving significant loss of life that has not been so investigated.[48] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn48)
Compounding the harm done to survivors was the task given to them to bring all human remains and classified materials out of the research spaces that had been destroyed by the torpedo explosion. The survivors assigned to this task were further traumatized by having to secure the remains of their shipmates, men they knew and had lived and worked with.[49] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn49)
In the years that followed the attack, almost all of the evidence pertaining to the attack remained, inexplicably, highly classified. Starting in the late 1970s, heavily redacted documents began to be released as a result of FOIA requests. To this day, many USS Liberty related documents, including the CIA report referenced by Director Helms, remain classified.
A number of individuals and groups, some directly in the employ of the Israeli government, others self-appointed, have attempted to convince the public that the attack on USS Liberty was but an "innocent mistake."[50] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn50) In furtherance of this goal they have fabricated and repeated demonstrably false allegations the most notable fabrication being that there have been "thirteen official investigations (including five Congressional investigations)" – all of which concluded that the attack was a "tragic error." These allegations are wholly and demonstrably false.[51] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn51)Worse, in some instances, deliberately falsified evidence has been proffered in support of this argument.[52] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn52)
As a result of the public relations campaign undertaken on behalf of Israel, the USS Liberty survivors have been vilified for their assertions that the attack was deliberate and for their ongoing quest for justice. They are characterized as "neo-Nazis", "anti-Semites", and "conspiracy theorists" for wanting nothing more than an honest, open investigation of the attack on their ship and themselves.[53] (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm#_edn53)
In 2003, an independent commission of highly regarded experts was created to look into the matter. The Commission consisted of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps, (MOH), Former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps; Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy; and Ambassador James Akins (Ret.), Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
and more , I want to know what is this kind of topic. however this your put topic is very difficult to read because of sentences too much . I hope you'll be change your mind to be more easy to understand this topic for us. please.

mi35d
07-03-2007, 11:52 AM
Again, to remind everyone who tries to compare this incident with a single "friendly fire" occurance:

The ship was attacked several times in OPEN WATER by fighter attack aircraft. Visibility was clear, it was during daylight hours.

The ship was attacked again by patrol boats with machine gun fire and...A TORPEDO ATTACK.

This wasn't a "fog of war" event.

This wasn't a blurry image in a night vision screen.

This was a US vessel in INTERNATIONAL WATERS flying an oversized standard.

The lame excuse that was offered of the pilots flying for 24hrs straight (complete crap) would justify, what? A single attack before they noticed the US flag on the ship? After that, who in their right mind would accept the fighters coming in for several more runs and then the attacks by the patrol boats as "friendly fire"???

For the pro-Israelis on this forum just admit they did something incredibly stupid and the reason has been covered up. Making up some excuse about exhausted pilots and Egyptian ships nearly half the size just proves your ignorance.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 02:32 PM
For the pro-Israelis on this forum just admit they did something incredibly stupid and the reason has been covered up. Making up some excuse about exhausted pilots and Egyptian ships nearly half the size just proves your ignorance.




'excuses' about combat fatigue??

dude, you ever fly a plane? you ever been in a cockpit for more than 3 hours? no offense but you are talking out of your ass, and you werent there. When you are in the air for 24 straight hours of combat sorties, come back and talk to me about 'excuses'. and there were egyptian ships in the area, if you actually bothered to read about an incident.

this case is a prototypical case of fog of war, miscommunication between the ship and IAF, clearance by tower to attack based on false assumption, sightings of egyptian supply ships in the same area, tired and overworked pilots, all added up to this event. This is precisely what 'fog of war' means.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 02:39 PM
rundown on 10 US investigations and 2 Israeli investigations into the incident



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," but 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.


ISR Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

ISR Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 02:44 PM
Michael Oren - pulitzer prize winning author of Six Days of War (the authoritative account of the 1967 war) on the USS LIberty case


long but very interesting





Early in the afternoon of June 8, 1967, Israeli jets and missile boats opened fire on the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship operating off the coast of Gaza. Struck by rockets, cannons and torpedoes, the vessel suffered extensive damage and over 200 casualties. Israeli forces were then engaged in the fourth day of what would soon be called the Six Day War, which would result in a devastating defeat for the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

At first overshadowed by Israel's stunning victory, the attack on the Liberty was destined to become a recurring source of tension between Israel and the United States. Although Israel apologized for the attack and paid compensation to its victims, many American officials rejected Israel's claim that the Liberty incident had been an honest mistake. Rather, they blamed Israel for what was at best inexcusable negligence, or at worst the premeditated murder of American servicemen. Such charges persisted in the face of successive inquiries by a broad range of American agencies and Congressional committees, as well as a full Israeli court of inquiry, all of which found no proof whatsoever that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship. On the contrary, the evidence produced by these investigations lent further support to Israel's claim that its decision to attack was, given the circumstances, a reasonable error.

These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a "cover-up," adding that he "cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity."1 Paul C. Warnke, then Under Secretary of the Navy, has written that

I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests.... 2

Similarly, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk has called the attack "outrageous," adding in a 1990 radio interview that "the Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go- ahead for these attacks...."3 David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo, puts it more bluntly: "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."4 And George Ball, then Under Secretary of State, has called the American government's response to the assault an "elaborate charade.... American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."5

Support for these charges can be found in a wide range of publications on the Liberty incident. Assault on the Liberty, a 1979 memoir by former Liberty officer Jim Ennes, Jr., describes the attack as intentional and malicious, and argues that the truth has been obscured by a massive cover-up conducted by Israel and its advocates abroad. This allegation has been repeated in Richard Deacon's The Israeli Secret Service (1977), in John Ranelagh's The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1986), and in Andrew and Leslie Cockburn's Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israel Covert Relationship (1991). The cover-up theory is also central to Stephen Green's Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (1984), one of the best-selling of all anti-Israel polemics. Nor is the charge of Israeli premeditation confined to books aimed at a popular audience. It also features prominently in academic works such as The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History by historian John E. Borne (1993), as well as Donald Neff's Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (1984), considered by many scholars a standard text on the Six Day War.6 Indeed, so powerful is the trend towards acceptance of Israeli guilt for having planned the attack that a 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence was able to carry the assertion of Reverdy S. Fishel that "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately...."7

The claim that Israel's attack on the Liberty was premeditated has also appeared persistently in the press. In 1992, nationally syndicated columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak dedicated a column, "Twenty-Five Years of Cover-Up,"8 to this charge. Similar accusations have been aired on television programs such as ABC's 20/20 and Geraldo Rivera's Now It Can Be Told.9 The claim is particularly widespread on the Internet, where a search for the "USS Liberty" yields dozens of sites, from those of Arab propagandists (Birzeit.edu, Salam.org, Palestine Forever) and anti-Semitic hate mongers (The Tangled Web, Jew Watch) to the award-winning USS Liberty Homepage, posted by Ennes and other veterans. But while the tenor of these pages may differ - the veterans abjure any anti-Semitism, stressing that several of their crewmates were Jewish - their conclusions are indistinguishable: Israel wantonly attacked the Liberty with the intention of killing every man on board, and then thwarted attempts to investigate the crime.10

Refuting this accusation was difficult if not impossible in the past, when the official records on the Liberty were designated top-secret and closed to the general public. With the recent declassification of these documents in the United States and Israel, however, researchers have gained access to a wealth of primary sources - Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and U.S. military records, Israeli diplomatic correspondence, and memoranda from both the State Department and the White House. With the aid of these materials, the attack on the Liberty can now be reconstructed virtually minute-by-minute and with remarkable detail. The picture that emerges is not one of crime at all, nor even of criminal negligence, but of a string of failed communications, human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides - the kind of tragic, senseless mistake that is all too common in the thick of war.

The USS Liberty was cruising from Norfolk, Virginia to Abidjan on the Ivory Coast when, in mid-May 1967, crisis erupted in the Middle East. Without warning, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sent thousands of troops into the Sinai desert, ousted the UN peacekeeping forces stationed there and then closed the Straits of Tiran - the critical waterway leading to Israel's southern port of Eilat - to Israeli shipping.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/liberty.jpg


In weighing its response, the Israeli government consulted with President Lyndon Johnson, who, though preoccupied with the Vietnam War, was sympathetic to Israel's plight. The President proposed to challenge the Tiran blockade with an international maritime convoy and on May 24, in preparation for this plan, he ordered the U.S. Sixth Fleet to advance into the eastern Mediterranean. Aware of the danger of becoming embroiled in an Arab-Israeli war, however, Washington cautioned the fleet to remain, until further notice, "outside an arc whose radius is 240 miles from Port Said," on the Egyptian coast.11

At this time, the Liberty was formally under the command of the Sixth Fleet, although in practice its orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, operating under the aegis of the National Security Agency (NSA). Code-named "Rockstar," the 455-foot "Auxiliary General Technical Research Ship (agtr)," as it was euphemistically called, was in fact a signals intelligence vessel (sigint) equipped with cutting-edge listening and decoding devices. Among its 294-man crew were several dozen members of the Naval Security Group, who worked below the starboard deck in an area strictly off-limits even to the Liberty's skipper, Cmdr. William L. McGonagle. The ship sported large antennas and radar discs, but apart from four .50-caliber machine-gun mounts, it had no visible armaments. The markings "GTR-5" were freshly painted on its bow, and from its mast flew a standard, navy-issue American flag.

As the Sixth Fleet steamed toward the eastern Mediterranean, the Liberty headed for Rota, Spain. There, in addition to supplies, it took on three Marine Corps Arabic translators, augmenting the three NSA Russian-language experts already on board. Then, on May 30, McGonagle received new instructions to sail "at best speed" to a point just half a mile outside Egyptian and Israeli territorial waters, which extended twelve and six nautical miles, respectively, from the coast. The order, originating with the JCS, superseded a request by the U.S. Naval Command in Europe (cinceur) to hold the Liberty in Rota "until directed otherwise." Neither cinceur nor McGonagle was aware of the Liberty's objective, later described by the Defense Department as "assuring communications between U.S. government posts... and assisting in... the evacuation of American citizens." Though the exact nature of its mission remains classified, the Liberty was most likely sent to track the movements of Egyptian troops and their Soviet advisors in Sinai - hence the need for Arabic and Russian translators.12

Johnson's idea of a convoy aimed at breaking the blockade came to nothing, and Nasser's troops remained mobilized in the Sinai. Syrian and Jordanian forces were also poised to attack. On the morning of June 5, with diplomatic options exhausted, the Israeli government went to war.13 The IDF launched lightning air and ground strikes against Egypt, quickly gaining the initiative, and repulsed attacks from Syria and Jordan. Yet the Israelis remained highly concerned about threats to their coastline, along which most of the country's major industrial and population centers were situated. The Egyptian navy outnumbered Israel's by more than five to one in warships and, in a crisis, could call on the support of some seventy Soviet vessels in the vicinity.14 The failure of the Israeli navy's attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel's fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."16

Before dawn on June 8, three days into the war, the Liberty finally reached its destination, barely within international waters north of the Sinai coast. Plying at a speed of five knots between Port Said and Gaza, the Liberty entered a lane rarely used by commercial freighters, which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. Anxious about his proximity to the fighting, McGonagle asked the Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, for permission to pull back from the shore, or else to be provided with a destroyer escort. Martin rejected these requests, noting that the Liberty "is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation."

Unbeknownst to both Martin and McGonagle, however, the JCS had repeatedly cabled the Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed, however, by the navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS' orders would not be received by the Liberty until the following day, June 9, by which time they would no longer be relevant.17

At 5:55 a.m. on June 8, Cmdr. Uri Meretz, a naval observer aboard an Israel Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance plane, noted what he believed to be an American supply vessel, designated GTR-5, seventy miles west of the Gaza coast. At Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa, staff officers fixed the location of the ship with a red marker, indicating "unidentified," on their control board. Research in Jane's Fighting Ships, however, established the vessel's identity as "the electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the United States, the Liberty." The marker was changed to green, for "neutral." Another sighting of the ship - "gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships" - was made by an Israeli fighter aircraft at 9:00 a.m., twenty miles north of El-Arish, on the Sinai coast, which had fallen to Israeli forces the day before.18 Neither of these reports made mention of the 5-by-8-foot American flag which, according to the ship's crewmen, was flying from the Liberty's starboard halyard.

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



Then, at 11:24, a terrific explosion rocked the shores of El-Arish. The blast was clearly heard by the men on the Liberty's bridge, who had been navigating according to the town's tallest minaret, and who also noted a thick pall of smoke wafting toward them. In El-Arish itself, Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore. Though the explosion probably resulted from an ammunition dump fire, that fact was unknown at the time, and both Egyptian and Israeli sources had reported shelling of the area by Egyptian warships the previous day. There was therefore good reason to conclude that the Egyptian navy had trained its guns on Sinai.21

Minutes after the explosion, the Liberty reached the eastern limit of its patrol and turned 238 degrees back in the direction of Port Said. Meanwhile, reports of a naval bombardment on El-Arish continued to reach IDF General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv. Rabin took them seriously, concerned that the shelling was a prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank advancing Israeli troops. He reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the war area, but also advised caution: Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby. Since no fighter planes were available, the navy was asked to intercede, with the assumption that air cover would be provided later. More than half an hour passed without any response from naval headquarters in Haifa. The General Staff finally issued a rebuke: "The coast is being shelled and you - the navy - have done nothing."22 Capt. Izzy Rahav, who had replaced Lunz in the operations room, needed no more prodding. He dispatched three torpedo boats of the 914th squadron, code-named "Pagoda," to find the enemy vessel responsible for the bombardment and destroy it. The time was 12:05 p.m.

At 1:41 p.m., Ensign Aharon Yifrah, combat information officer aboard the flagship of these torpedo boats, T-204, informed its captain, Cmdr. Moshe Oren,23 that an unidentified ship had been sighted northeast of El-Arish at a range of 22 miles. The ship was sailing toward Egypt at a speed, Yifrah estimated, of 30 knots.

Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots. Moreover, the Israelis had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessel in the area sailing at over 20 knots, a speed which, at that time, could only be attained by fighting ships. This information, when added to the ship's direction, indicated that the target was an enemy destroyer fleeing toward port after having shelled El-Arish.

The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull.

IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty's schedule - a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack.

The first salvos caught the Liberty's crew in "stand-down" mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle. Radio operators on board found most of their frequencies inoperable and barely managed to send an SOS to the Sixth Fleet. The Mirages made three strafing runs and were then joined by two additional aircraft, Israeli Super-Mysteres returning from the Mitla Pass with a payload of napalm. After fourteen minutes of action, the pilots reported having made good hits - over eight hundred holes would later be counted in the hull. The entire superstructure of the ship, from the main deck to the bridge, was aflame.

Throughout these sorties, no one aboard the Liberty suspected that the planes were Israeli. Indeed, rumors spread that the attackers were Egyptian MiGs. After the first strike, the visibility that had enabled crewmen to identify IAF reconnaissance craft earlier in the day was lost to the smoke of battle. One of the Israeli pilots, curious as to why the vessel had not returned fire, made a final pass at ninety feet. "I see no flag," he told headquarters. "But there are markings on the hull - Charlie-Tango-Romeo-five."25

While Egyptian naval ships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. The fact that the ship had Western markings led Rabin to fear that it was Soviet, and he immediately called off the jets. Two IAF Hornet helicopters were sent to look for survivors - Spector had reported seeing men overboard - while the torpedo boat squadron was ordered to hold its fire pending further attempts at identification. Though that order was recorded in the torpedo boat's log, Oren claimed he never received it.26 It was now 2:20 in the afternoon; twenty-four minutes would pass before the squadron made contact with the Liberty.

During that interval, the ship's original flag, having been shredded during the attack, was replaced by a larger (7-by-13-foot) holiday ensign. As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. "Help is on the way," replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes - F-104s [sic - probably A-4] armed with nuclear weapons. Before they reached their objective, however, the jets were recalled by Vice-Adm. Martin. If Rabin feared that the ship was Russian, Martin suspected that its attackers were Russian, and without authorization from the highest level, he did not want to risk starting a nuclear war.27

Meanwhile, the Israeli torpedo boats came within range. The Liberty was shrouded in smoke, but even so, Oren could see that it could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled El-Arish. Rather, he believed, it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced that destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach. At 6,000 meters, Oren's T-204 flagship paused and signaled "AA" - "identify yourself." Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply in kind, AA, with a hand-held Aldis lamp.28 Oren remembered receiving a similar response from the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim al-Awwal, captured by the Israeli navy in the 1956 war, and was sure that he now faced an enemy ship. Consulting his naval intelligence manual, he concluded that the vessel in front of him - its deck line, midship bridge and smokestack - resembled the Egyptian freighter El-Quseir. The officers of the other two boats reached the same conclusion independently, and followed Oren into battle formation.29

Any lingering doubts were soon dispelled as the Israeli boats came under sudden fire from the Liberty. Unaware of McGonagle's order not to shoot at the approaching boats, a sailor had opened up with one of the Brownings. Another machine gun also fired, apparently on its own, triggered by exploding ammunition. Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire. Rahav finally approved. 30

Of the five torpedoes fired at the Liberty only one found its mark, a direct hit on the starboard side, killing twenty-five, almost all of them from the intelligence section. The Israeli craft closed in, their cannons and machine guns raking the Liberty's hull and, according to the crew's testimony, its life rafts as well. One of those rafts, picked up by T-203, was found to bear U.S. Navy markings - the first indication that Oren had that the ship might be American. His suspicions mounted when while circling the badly listing ship, Oren confronted the designation GTR-5. But still no flag was spotted, and it would take another half an hour, until 3:30 p.m., to establish the vessel's identity.31

"I must admit I had mixed feelings about the news - profound regret at having attacked our friends and a tremendous sense of relief [that the boat was not Soviet]," Rabin later recalled.32 News of the ship's American nationality had arrived during an emergency meeting of the General Staff to discuss possible Soviet reprisals. An apology was immediately sent to Castle, and none too soon, as eight conventionally armed warplanes had been launched from the USS Saratoga and sanctioned to "use whatever force required to defend the Liberty."

As the American jets returned to their carrier, the two Israeli Hornets reached the Liberty and offered assistance. Oren, shouting through a bullhorn, also tried to communicate with the ship. But McGonagle refused to respond. Realizing, finally, that his assailants had been Israeli, he flagged the torpedo boats away and gestured provocatively at the Hornets. Even Castle himself, arriving just before dusk in another Israeli chopper, was denied permission to land. By 5:05 p.m., the Israelis had broken off contact, and the Liberty, navigating virtually without systems, with 34 dead and 171 wounded aboard, staggered out to sea. 33

The center of the crisis then shifted from the Mediterranean to Washington. It was only at 9:50 a.m. eastern time - nearly two hours after the first shots were fired34 - that the White House received word from the JCS that the Liberty, "located 60-100 miles north of Egypt," had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved. To forestall further escalation, he hotlined the Kremlin with news of the attack and of the dispatch of jets from the Saratoga.

But then the Israelis informed the Americans of the "mistaken action," and Johnson, like Rabin before him, breathed a sigh of relief.35 While "strong dismay" was conveyed to Ambassador Harman, so too were the Administration's thanks for the speed of Israel's notification. Apologies soon came in from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol ("Please accept my profound condolences and convey my sympathy to all the bereaved families") and Foreign Minister Abba Eban ("I am deeply mortified and grieved by the tragic accident involving the lives and safety of Americans"), as well as from the Israeli chargé d'affaires in Washington, Efraim Evron, a personal friend of Johnson's ("I grieve with you over the lives that were lost, and share in the sorrow of the parents, wives and children of the men who died in this cruel twist of fate"). Within forty-eight hours, the Israeli government offered to compensate the victims and their families.36

At first, Israeli expressions of regret and offers of restitution seemed to satisfy the Administration, whose initial reaction was to downplay the incident. Of particular concern was the danger that the Liberty's presence in the area might reinforce Nasser's charge that the Sixth Fleet had aided Israel in the war - what Washington called "The Big Lie."37 These reservations soon faded, however, as senior officials began to ask pointed questions: Why did the Israelis attack a neutral ship on the high seas, without the slightest provocation? How had they failed to see the Liberty's flag or the freshly painted markings on its hull? How could they confuse the Liberty with the El-Quseir, a far slower, smaller boat, with no distinctive antennas? And finally, how could a ship sailing at 5 knots, whose maximum speed was 18, be gauged at 30?

"Beyond comprehension," fumed Secretary of State Dean Rusk. "We cannot accept such a situation." Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chief Clark Clifford, known for his pro-Israeli views, reported to Johnson that the attack was "inexcusable... a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli government should be held completely responsible." While no official could explain what motivation Israel might have had for assaulting an American vessel, neither did the facts seem to square. Either the Israelis had exhibited rank incompetence - in the midst of a victory that was nothing short of brilliant - or they had struck the Liberty on purpose. Indeed, many in the Administration had already concluded that the attack was intentional and that Israel's explanations were entirely disingenuous. Increasingly, the charge of negligence gave way to one of cold-blooded murder.38

The Israelis moved to dispel these accusations with two preliminary reports on the incident. These admitted the IDF's culpability in erroneously reporting a naval barrage on El-Arish, miscalculating the Liberty's speed, and confusing the ship with the El-Quseir. Yet both studies insisted that the attack was an "innocent mistake," with no malice or gross negligence involved.39



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

kamaz
07-03-2007, 02:47 PM
cont.


"This makes no goddamned sense at all," remarked Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow when presented with these findings on June 10. The attack, wrote Rusk, was "quite literally incomprehensible... an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life." Further umbrage was taken at the Israeli reports' suggestion that the Liberty had no business being where it was, had failed to inform Israel of its presence, and had failed to use all means (semaphores, flares, flags) to identify itself to the torpedo boats. The United States now demanded that Israel not only pay compensation but admit wrongdoing and court-martial those responsible for the attack "in accordance with international law."40

Israel rebuffed these demands, but at the same time it launched a third and even more comprehensive investigation. Headed by military jurist Col. Yeshayahu Yerushalmi, the commission delved into the question of the control-board markers, the pilots' testimonies and the orders given to the torpedo boats. Yet, while critical of the same intelligence failures noted in the earlier reports, as well as the awkward command relationship between the air force and the navy, Yerushalmi's findings were identical to those of his predecessors. "For all my regret that our forces were involved in an incident with a vessel belonging to a friendly state," he wrote, "I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify a court- martial."41

The top-secret Yerushalmi report was conveyed to the Americans, who rejected it with the same mix of incredulity and indignation that had marked their responses to the previous reports. But the United States was holding its own investigations into the affair, beginning with the Navy Court of Inquiry held in Malta shortly after the attack. The hearings revealed basic contradictions in the testimonies of McGonagle and other officers regarding the length and sequence of the attack, and raised the possibility that, due to light winds, the flag might well not have been visible to Israeli pilots. Furthermore, Rear-Adm. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., the presiding officer, found no evidence that the attack was in any way intentional, calling it "a case of mistaken identity." Subsequent closed-door inquiries were conducted by the CIA, the NSA, the JCS, as well as by both houses of Congress. All reached the same conclusion: That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more.

Yet suspicions of Israel's duplicity in the incident, even among high officials, lingered. As Rusk asserted many years later in his memoirs, "I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day."42

The American and Israeli investigative reports go a long way toward disproving the charge that the Israelis maliciously opened fire on a ship they knew to be American. In the three decades prior to their declassification, however, numerous theories were posited to explain why Israel, engaged in war and internationally isolated, would willingly attack its only superpower ally. Now, with the aid of the recently released documents, it is possible to determine whether any of these hypotheses had a basis in fact. Among the more far-fetched theories that have been suggested is the possibility that the Liberty was attacked because it had learned of the Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs; or that it had picked up Israeli attempts to draw Jordan into the war so that Jerusalem might be brought under Israeli control.43 But no document, American or Israeli, contains any reference to prisoner executions; neither are they mentioned in any Arabic source that has come to light to date.44 By the same token, the Jordanian attack on Israel on June 5 and the fall of Jerusalem to Israeli forces on June 7 took place well before the Liberty's arrival off the Gaza coast, and none of the documents now available in any way link the Liberty incident on June 8 to these events.

Far more serious has been the claim that the Israelis attacked the Liberty because it had been eavesdropping on Israel's plans for capturing the Golan Heights. Thus Adm. Thomas Moorer, writing in the July-August 1997 issue of The Link magazine, has speculated that

Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known opposition to such a move.... And I believe [Israeli Defense Minister] Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information - the USS Liberty.45

Historian Donald Neff takes the supposition a step further, presenting it as fact:

If the ship could listen in on Israeli military communications, as it could, then the United States could discover Israel's plans to attack Syria. Foreknowledge of the attack might bring an ultimatum from the United States, an ultimatum that could not be ignored because Israel desperately still needed Washington's support both in the United Nations and to fend off any threats from the Soviet Union. Without the United States, the Soviet Union might directly intervene if Israel took on its last, comparatively unscathed, client, Syria.

Indeed, Neff goes so far as to posit that Israel actually delayed its attack on Syria until after the Liberty was neutralized.46

The theory that the attack on the Liberty was motivated by a desire to conceal the impending Israeli attack on the Golan Heights is not, then, confined to the extremist fringe, but has made headway in important political and academic circles. In the past, refuting it was dependent largely on appeals to common sense, such as that made by Ernest Castle, the former U.S. naval attaché, in an interview with British television:

Let us presume the Israeli high command was... fearful that the United States would learn of what was an evident Israeli plan to take the Golan, or any other plan on the part of the Israelis. Would they say, "my golly, that will irritate the United States, our great friend. We'd better not... let that happen - so let's sink their ship instead"?47

Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes - submarines could have done the job - nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance.

But it is no longer necessary to decide the argument on the basis of common sense alone. Like the other claims for Israel's alleged motive in attacking the Liberty, the one linking the assault to the Golan Heights campaign cannot withstand the scrutiny of the newly declassified documents. These confirm that Israel made no attempt to hide its preparations for an offensive against Syria, and that the United States government, relying on regular diplomatic channels, remained fully apprised of them. Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria's bombardment of Israeli villages "in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim." That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that "I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack [on the Golan] does take place or has already done so," and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."48

Similarly, the United States National Archives contain no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington's already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and of Israel's intentions there. The Israeli records, for their part, reveal no fear whatsoever of American opposition to punishing Syria, but only of possible Soviet military intervention. (It was this fear that led Israel to delay its decision to capture the Golan until the morning of June 9.) Nor do they suggest that there was any danger of an American ultimatum. On the contrary, from his conversations with presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy and other administration officials, Foreign Minister Abba Eban understood that "official Washington would not be too aggrieved if Syria suffered some painful effects from the war that it had started...."49

Once again, there is no indication in the archives that the Israelis were troubled by the Liberty, much less considered it worthy of attack. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone in the Israeli government, or the IDF Chief of Staff, knew of the ship's presence at all.50

The USS Liberty was decommissioned in 1968 and later sold for scrap. That same year, William McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of Honor for gallantry displayed during the attack, and Israel paid over $6 million in restitution to the families of those wounded and killed. An additional $6 million in damages was paid under a 1980 agreement in which Israel and the United States consented "not to address the issue or motive or reopen the case for any reason."51 But the case remained open nonetheless. While the controversy surrounding similar incidents would subside - the Iraqi missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987 and the downing of an Iranian jetliner by the USS Vincennes in 1988 come to mind - the bitterness over the Liberty incident endured. The release of hitherto classified papers on the incident, however, now enables us to dispel spurious theories about the incident, and to conclude that Israel's assault upon the USS Liberty was a tragic error, and nothing more. In light of the new documents, it is now possible to reconstruct the chain of mishaps on the part of both sides that led to the unintended Israeli attack.

The incident began with the ill-conceived decision to send the Liberty to the crisis-torn Middle East, a mere half-mile beyond Egyptian waters, in an area not used by commercial shipping and which Nasser had declared off-limits to neutral vessels. The Americans did not accede to Chief of Staff Rabin's request for the identification of all U.S. ships in the area or Ambassador Harman's request for a strategic liaison between Israel and the Sixth Fleet. The Liberty's dispatchers, meanwhile, overrode naval orders to keep the ship in Spain, and then failed to inform the U.S. attaché in Tel Aviv of its presence near the war zone. These mistakes were compounded by the navy's communications system, which delayed by as much as two days orders to the Liberty to withdraw 100 miles from the coast.52 Even after it was hit, the Americans had difficulty locating the Liberty, the JCS placing it at "60-100 miles north of Egypt." If neither Castle, nor cinceur, nor even the President of the United States could know where the Liberty was, it seems unreasonable to expect that the Israelis, in the thick of battle, should have been able to locate it.

The Israelis, too, committed their own share of fateful errors, as the Yerushalmi report points out: The erroneous reports of bombardment at El-Arish, the failure to replace the Liberty's marker on the board after it had been cleared, the over-eagerness of naval commanders, and worst of all, Ensign Yifrah's miscalculation of the ship's speed. Though Yerushalmi's report suggested reasons for these errors - inflexible naval procedures, the inaccuracy of speed-measuring devices - one is still left with a sense of poor organization and sloppy execution. Moreover, there were breakdowns in communications between the Israeli navy and air force stemming from inadequate command structure and the immense pressures of a multi-front war. To these factors must be added Israel's general sensitivity about its coastal defenses, and the exhaustion of its pilots after four days of uninterrupted combat. Yet none of these amount to the kind of gross negligence of which the Israelis have been accused.

And then there were "bad breaks" that are unfortunately commonplace in war: The U.S. planes that were called back because of their nuclear payload (their mere presence might have warded off the torpedo boats); the Liberty's inability to signal the approaching Israeli boats, and the machine gunner who fired on them; and the smoke that hid the identities of both the attackers and the attacked.

All of these elements combined to create a tragic "friendly fire" incident of the kind that claimed the lives of at least fifty Israeli soldiers in the Six Day War, and caused 5,373 American casualties in Vietnam in 1967 alone.53 Obviously, these findings can do little to lessen the suffering of those American servicemen who were wounded in the incident, nor can they be expected to offer comfort to the families of the dead. But they should at least permit us to bring to a close what has for a generation remained one of the most painful chapters in the history of America's relationship with the State of Israel.

mi35d
07-03-2007, 03:19 PM
Actually, I was aircrew for four years. Blow it out your own ass.

The 1967 war started on 5 June. The attack occured on 8 June. The air threat had been wiped out within the first day of the war and by 8 June, little air action would have been occuring.

Fog of war refers to confusion in battle; Mistaken identity and a quick reaction to a threat that turns out to be an ally.

There is no basis for the "fog of war" excuse when the "enemy" in question is clearly NOT an enemy combatant. There was no "fight or flee" response required from the pilots. They weren't targeted nor being attacked.

And once again, even if you excuse the first attack by ONE "confused" fighter pilot, how do you excuse the remaining fighter assaults on the ship? How is this "excused" pilot's confusion somehow a free pass for patrol boats to be called, torpedoes to be fired and RESCUE PERSONNEL TO BE ENGAGED AT CLOSE RANGE WITH SMALL ARMS FIRE???

I'm not condemning Israel, but to create this "they can do no wrong" mentality is foolish.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I think I'll place my trust in what the murders came up with.....No way, you can swallow all the Isreali/IDF BS you want, I place my trust in the men of the Liberty not the Killers.

do you even read what people post, or process information? youre like some knee-jerk Pavlovian experiment. Its ISRAELI, not Isreali, and the author is an American professor, and was never in the IDF. You should probably READ it first before making an ass out of yourself.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 03:31 PM
I'm not condemning Israel, but to create this "they can do no wrong" mentality is foolish.


who is saying that 'they can do no wrong' ???

Im saying exactly this, that they did do wrong, and they have admitted themselves that it was negligence and failure of communciation. They compensated the victims and their families and acknoweldged wrong doing.

numerous commissions by both nations found absolutely zero evidence for premeditated motives for the attacks, as our friend Trace so adamantly keeps claiming.

it is much more juicy and dramatic to keep pushing the 'they killed them on purpose' theory then acknowledge what actually did happen, that in a middle of a large scale war, with barely protected coastline, a FF incident did occur with terrible consequences.

read Oren's article about the incident, it includes virtually all of the quotes that Trace was kind enough to provide us, and debunks every one of the theories of 'malicious intent', including the heinous and disgusting 'egyptian POW' theory that has absolutely no basis of fact.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 03:41 PM
ill put up some passages from Oren's article (originally published in Six Days of War) for those of you too lazy to read it.


"On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."16 "



"The failure of the Israeli navy's attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel's fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. "


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


"Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots. Moreover, the Israelis had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessel in the area sailing at over 20 knots, a speed which, at that time, could only be attained by fighting ships. This information, when added to the ship's direction, indicated that the target was an enemy destroyer fleeing toward port after having shelled El-Arish."


"The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was "gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel." Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots' first names) reckoned that the ship was a "Z" or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was "Negative." Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some "black letters" painted on the hull.
"

kamaz
07-03-2007, 04:22 PM
lol, so the israelis are now linked to 9/11 too?

what else? exxon valdez spill (Mossad orchestrated), Mike Tyson biting Holyfield's ear off (brain chip implanted by IDF), britney shaves her head (she's a supposed Kabbalah worshiper, check), etc, etc


the fun never stops. im really done now. thats it. I love how the unidentified super secret israeli pilot is never revealed, yet his solid, credible, provable testimony is held up as absolute truth. nevermind that all comm records between the tower and the IAF fighters were released to the public (Oren's article goes over this in length), the super secret hidden unknown Israeli pilot is def the trusted source here.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 04:57 PM
besides posting the USS Liberty survivors lawsuit against Israel for the 20th time, with no new details regarding the case, you mention this (in huge font, for no apparent reason)


* Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway. This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991. * Finally, there is evidence, circumstantial but clear, of a relationship between the attack on the Liberty and a postponement of Israel's planned attack on the Golan Heights. The Golan attack was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on 8 June; the Liberty was spotted by 6 a.m. or earlier; lastminute orders delayed the Golan attack;


interesting, since this supposed pilot was never identified by any known source except some sort of a radio intercept, identified by a single individual, namely Dwight Porter, yet this intercept is strangely hidden from everyone involved, even after all the communication data has been declassified on both sides. Ok, fine, and the reason for the attack on the Liberty as you say was due to the Golan Heights offensive.


from Oren's article



"The theory that the attack on the Liberty was motivated by a desire to conceal the impending Israeli attack on the Golan Heights is not, then, confined to the extremist fringe, but has made headway in important political and academic circles. In the past, refuting it was dependent largely on appeals to common sense, such as that made by Ernest Castle, the former U.S. naval attaché, in an interview with British television:

Let us presume the Israeli high command was... fearful that the United States would learn of what was an evident Israeli plan to take the Golan, or any other plan on the part of the Israelis. Would they say, "my golly, that will irritate the United States, our great friend. We'd better not... let that happen - so let's sink their ship instead"?47

Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes - submarines could have done the job - nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance.

But it is no longer necessary to decide the argument on the basis of common sense alone. Like the other claims for Israel's alleged motive in attacking the Liberty, the one linking the assault to the Golan Heights campaign cannot withstand the scrutiny of the newly declassified documents. These confirm that Israel made no attempt to hide its preparations for an offensive against Syria, and that the United States government, relying on regular diplomatic channels, remained fully apprised of them. Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria's bombardment of Israeli villages "in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim." That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that "I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack [on the Golan] does take place or has already done so," and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."48

Similarly, the United States National Archives contain no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington's already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and of Israel's intentions there. The Israeli records, for their part, reveal no fear whatsoever of American opposition to punishing Syria, but only of possible Soviet military intervention. (It was this fear that led Israel to delay its decision to capture the Golan until the morning of June 9.) Nor do they suggest that there was any danger of an American ultimatum. On the contrary, from his conversations with presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy and other administration officials, Foreign Minister Abba Eban understood that "official Washington would not be too aggrieved if Syria suffered some painful effects from the war that it had started...."49

Once again, there is no indication in the archives that the Israelis were troubled by the Liberty, much less considered it worthy of attack. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone in the Israeli government, or the IDF Chief of Staff, knew of the ship's presence at all.50 "

IDF_TANKER
07-03-2007, 05:14 PM
@Kamaz
You did a very valuable contribution to this discussion, but I'm afraid your effort is for nothing. Our esteemed opponent Race doesn't seem to be interested in discussion, he is only going to bombard us by endless huge articles(sometime posting twice the same), which in anyway are virtually impossible to read in the given time frame, instead of making a clear statement and providing a short quote/excerpt supporting the statement (like it's usually done in a forum discussion). He is not interested to hear you - only to make you listen...

Palmach
07-03-2007, 06:07 PM
Your points have been answered and refuted time and again. However your debating still makes a two way conversation impossible. You do not advance any kind of arguments, you justs dump page after page of text which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the point your opponent is making. What you are doing, sir, does not qualify as "making you point" or "debating".

In fact the last 11 or 12 pages illustrate your gradual unravelling and an onset of a compolsive behaviour on your part. Why don't you take a time out and cool down. When you feel better we can try having this conversation again.

Palmach
07-03-2007, 06:09 PM
What is there to discuss, Israel said it was a mistake, the evidence says Israel is lying. I've posted tons of pages from up and down the full spectrum of US dignitaries and Military men

None of which constitutes factual evidence. You've been given CIA intercepts and transcripts of the air control exchanges with the pilots amongst other source and you refute with opinions.

kamaz
07-03-2007, 06:20 PM
this dude is hopeless. I've refuted every possible reason that Israel may have had to attack the US ship, including the egyptian POW theory and the Golan Heights offensive theory, and provided thorough explanations and facts as to why the FF incident occured, but this guy doesnt read anything.

He hasnt read a single thing I've posted and writes stuff like this

So now its come down to "since I cant refute the facts he has posted...lets attack the man "

Ive refuted every single charge that he's brought up, but he doesnt read, because he's ignorant and foolish and has pre-determined intangible notions that are immobile to given facts . Rational conversation with him is futile.

AlphaOneSix
07-03-2007, 06:47 PM
If you look long enough, you can find limitless information supporting your claim, no matter the claim. Just as you have done nothing more than copied and pasted articles supporting your position, it would be just as simple for others here to copy and paste articles the do not support your position. By "debate" it seems you mean that you will paste in an article supporting your position, and someone else should paste one supporting theirs?

Personally, I think that there is still information out there that has not been released which could shed more light on this incident. Since that information (assuming it even exists) is being withheld by the same governemts that it could help exonerate, it would seem to indicate guilt. But that's kind of pushing it.

What happened to the Liberty sucks, no doubt about it. It was tragic and many good people lost their lives. What purpose exactly is served by proving that it was done on purpose? Would it make someone feel better? Is someone going to go to jail? If the government of Israel came out and said "we did it on purpose!" then what? Is all of this regurgitation of articles actually for a reason other than to prove that you're right and someone else is wrong?

kamaz
07-03-2007, 07:13 PM
Normal Finkelstein .. bwahahahahaha

Paiste
07-03-2007, 07:33 PM
look its pretty easy
this world is not what you think it is
israel has a lot more power then a lot of people want you to believe
why do you think israel can get away with so many things?
why do you think america puts up with the fact that israel gives the US a bad image for its actions in the middle east
israel controls a great deal of the world and therefore they can get away with lots of things, even killing US citizens
this has nothing to do with the israeli people or jews which or not better or worse then us europeans or americans (I respect the normal jew people) but it has to do with an exclusive club of very powerful people who kinda dictate the american policy
but yeah I have no proof for this, if i would then israels rulling would end because trust me if the american people would know how things really go they would hate israel
the media is very important for the existence of israel and you can be sure that mossaad and other high level israeli people control a great deal of the world media
its liek their oxygen, if they lose the media propaganda they will lose everything
you can even feel this control over here at militaryphotos.net
but yeah i ll probably get bashed forever about this, I just gave my opionion
Out

Paiste
07-03-2007, 07:47 PM
maybe the wrong thread but a personal opinion which suits any israel vs US get away thread imo
Out

AlphaOneSix
07-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Hmmmm! there was a break in at the Watergate Hotel....Hmmmm should we find out whats behind it ? Naaa we might hurt someones feelings!

Pleasedon't misrepresent my statement, unless you're just trying to spin what I said.

Anyway, my point is this: Are you just trying to prove that you're right, or are you seeking some sort of action against Israel? Or maybe something else? You have an agenda, I'm just trying to find out what it is. (And by "agenda" I don't mean anything bad, everyone has some sort of agenda when they argue, only insane people argue for no reason at all.)

snoddy
07-03-2007, 08:05 PM
13 pages is alot to read.... so im jumping in at the end....

do we know what happened to the people that were working "during" the attack,
that didnt get the "pass on" that a US ship was hanging out?

if so what page?

also whats up with the guy on the net saying to the helo pilot,
hull numbers mean nothing????? when he was trying to ID her????


poor guys RIP.....

kamaz
07-03-2007, 08:16 PM
only insane people argue for no reason at all.)



oh you havent met my family then. lol.

Palmach
07-03-2007, 10:16 PM
Ok, the man is clearly losing it.

Any further exchange would only lead to further outbursts of hostility, self-rightious anger, peddling of conspiracy theories, and gigabytes of irrelevant articles.

Just as a matter of note - Oren's book on the 6 day war is considered definitive on the subject, his is one of the most comprehensive sets of sources of any work on the subject. Finkelstein on the other hand has no background in the history of that particular conflict and has made a name for himself by being an ass. His opinion of Oren's work, without supporting evidence of any sort if I may add, is a) further proof of that Oren's work is quality, and b) is an example of pointless and irrelevant articles we are subjected to.

I strongly suggest people stop responding to this guy - at this point its like provoking a village idiot: cruel and pointless.

snoddy
07-03-2007, 10:35 PM
I may be tired or even a bit punchy at this point but maybe if you were clearer in you request I could point you to what you are looking for


did the guys who made the gun runs and the boats that shot at it, did they get punished? if so what page so i can read it? sorry im tired too, kinda tipsy aswell....

when the helo pilot ID'd the ship and called in the hull numbers, the operator said it meant nothing?

why would that mean nothing?

just wondering.......

snoddy
07-04-2007, 12:02 AM
yeah i read that, either way, the first shift should have passed the info on to the second shift.

somebody should have gotten :bash:

snoddy
07-04-2007, 10:45 AM
No problem, if you have the time read the war crimes paper on the second page of this thread, it goes into the complete attack and is not tied down in double talk........

sounds good.

mi35d
07-04-2007, 12:33 PM
<<<Your points have been answered and refuted time and again.>>>

Actually, nothing has been refuted. There's no doubt concerning the attack. It occured.

This is where the argument seems to lay. Defenders of the Liberty say that the attack was clearly not an "accident" a "fog of war" incident. Defenders of the IDF say, "mistaken identity".

The evidence which hasn't been disputed or refuted was that the attack occured over two hours with fighters and patrol boats in broad daylight and that the ship was being spot jammed.

The overwhelming evidence points to a coordinated attack not an accident. Debate the political ramifications and reasons but please, stop trying to say that it was some erroneous sleep deprived error.

big_les
10-05-2007, 06:51 AM
This may ellicit groans from both sides I realise, but there's apparently been more FOIA material released on this incident, and as an impartial observer, it seems to me to support the idea that whether the attack was an honest mistake or not (and breathtakingly negligent if so), the US government elected to downplay it for "bigger picture" political reasons.

The new material is here - http://www.nsa.gov/liberty
A Chicago Tribune article about this (which goes further than I think the evidence allows, to suggest a deliberate attack by Israel) is here - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,4731731.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1

All of the whackjob anti-semitic conspiracy theory stuff (i.e. false flag or US complicity in a Zionist act of aggression BS) has only served to obfuscate the issue and discredit people (including survivors) who didn't accept the official line but also didn't go off the deep end with wild alternative theories.

Further, the refusal by Israel to admit an egregious error and of the US to do anything about it (diplomatic stuff only, obviously) has only served to strengthen the cause of the aforementioned anti-semites and tin-foil-hatters. If admissions and reparations had been made, this whole 40-year mess could have been avoided.