USS Liberty a cover-up?

SpitfireIX said:
Straw man. I said the Israelis are entitled to a presumption of innocence. I never said they are innocent in all cases. Further, the claim that the attack was deliberate is an extraordinary claim, especially in the absence of a credible motive.
Click to expand...

Saying that the Israelis attacked the ship by accident doesn't mean that they were entirely innocent. It just means that it wasn't part of some big scheme designed to lure the USA into the war. As with other incidents where ships and planes have been accidentally destroyed, there may have been a reckless failure to identify the target.

This isn't as satisfactory as a clear cut decision to do something for a reason. CT's will always favour organisation over chaos, and certainty over ignorance.
 
westprog said:
Saying that the Israelis attacked the ship by accident doesn't mean that they were entirely innocent. It just means that it wasn't part of some big scheme designed to lure the USA into the war. As with other incidents where ships and planes have been accidentally destroyed, there may have been a reckless failure to identify the target.
Click to expand...


Which is why, in my original quote, I said, "innocent of deliberately attacking."
 
parky76 said:
And that good reason is?

.
Click to expand...

Because the US needs the best possible knowledge it can get on the activities/abilities of all other countries/agencies, etc. What world do you live in where you do not need constant up-to-date data on things that affect or may affect you?
 
gumboot said:
Not entirely...

Military personnel have to suffer the consequences of their superiors' orders. Those consequences may include death, and this may be known at the time. Indeed, the officers themselves may know that they are ordering their subordinates to certain death.

If every military member had the right to a full explanation from their superiors for every incident and action they are directed to take, the military would not function.

When no assistance was sent to the USS Liberty and when no one was blamed, the crew of the ship have to accept that these decisions are in the best interests of Israel.

It is a given, when you join the military that your concerns are not important in the big scheme of things - indeed your life is not important. What is important is the interests and concerns of your nation.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

corrected

MaGZ, it's not civil to misquote other posters. Don't do that. For the record, Gumboot's original post is #28, it should read "United States" instead of "Israel".
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaGZ said:
  • Americans believe in the Israeli version of events. We have to, because we are not able to think for ourselves.
  • In other words the Israelis are innocent. It was just a big misunderstanding.
  • Don’t your understand, this is America. In America there is never any criticism of Israel.
  • They both were responsible for this tragedy. Somehow it was just the Americans that got killed.
  • [T]he Israelis are always innocent. Name a time when they harmed America?
  • In other words, just a big misunderstanding.
Click to expand...


Repeatedly posting sneering comments is all very well and good, but do you actually have any reason to believe that it wasn’t just a misunderstanding?
 
parky76 said:
And that good reason is?

By the way, if solid evidence does indeed come out one day that Israel clearly knew the identity of the ship as American, and attacked it anyways, that may be the end of the special Israel-American relationship.
Click to expand...

The realization by the American public that Israel was responsible for the anthrax attacks would have the same affect.
 
WildCat said:
In 1967 there was no "special relationship" between Israel and the US. IMHO, this fact is why the Liberty incident seems to have been given new life in recent years - people think that we were attacked by a close ally. Wasn't the case in 1967.

My take on this incident - and it is just my opinion - is that the attack was deliberate (not accidental) because the Israelies feared that the US was going to provide intelligence to Egypt. The Libertyy was a spy ship after all, and the US was fearful that Egypt was getting too close to the Soviets. Israeli fears that the US would provide the Egyptians with military intelligence was not unthinkable at the time, given that the US was eager to wrest them away from Soviet influences during the peak of the Cold War.

I think it is obvious that the Liberty was there to spy, and was in a sensitive area in a war zone. Afterwards, the whole thing was hushed up because diplomatic niceties outweighed the deaths of the crew in the eyes of the powers that be. So Israel claims it weas a mistake, the US officially accepts that and doesn't have to explain what the Liberty was actually doing there.

My $0.02
Click to expand...

I am frankly surprised you would admit the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate.
 
Travis said:
I once found a website that did a good job of breaking down the whole situation with the misidentification's and such that basically resulted in one gigantic FUBAR situation for all sides involved. If anyone knows of it a link would be nice but I'm gonna endeavor to relocate it myself.


Also all discussion about it needs to take into account that this was not some regular Navy ship. This was an intelligence ship and that changes everything in terms of how both countries would treat and respond to the situation diplomatically.
Click to expand...

So the USS Liberty was an intelligence ship. In your oppinion which was it, a gigantic FUBAR situation or a deliberate attack?
 
MaGZ said:
I am frankly surprised you would admit the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate.
Click to expand...
WIldcat's is a plausible explanation. The Israeli government never "opened the kimono" with a full disclosure, there was the matter of the IAF pilot who changed his story, and if you read the Ennis' book, the numerous attack runs were close enough for the pilots to see an American flag. (I have photo rigged ships from a similar distance, and I can tell you from first hand experience, flags are discernable with the unaided eye.

Be that as it may, this is all mitigated by the Israeli government's admission that

"Uh, we did it" and their payment of reparations, etc, in reasonably good faith.

Note that one of Saddam Hussein's pilots mistakenly attacked the USS Stark, in 1987, and he fessed to the screw up rather quickly. Reagan accepted the mea culpa. Having been in the US Navy, on active duty at the time, I will tell you that my emotional reaction was to that incident was powerful. When the 1991 war went down, I noted in a letter to my Dad that "USS Stark was now avenged."

Dad's remark was "That wasn't why we went to war."

Politicians lie, yes. Some command and control mistakes were made on the US side of Liberty, and the political reaction was hardly scintillating. The big problem in 1967 was the USSR. Remember? I do.

I agree with Admiral Moorer's observation: the US government didn't do right by their sailors, for political reasons. The same reason we didn't bomb North Korea for taking the Pueblo.

DR
 
westprog said:
Saying that the Israelis attacked the ship by accident doesn't mean that they were entirely innocent. It just means that it wasn't part of some big scheme designed to lure the USA into the war. As with other incidents where ships and planes have been accidentally destroyed, there may have been a reckless failure to identify the target.

This isn't as satisfactory as a clear cut decision to do something for a reason. CT's will always favour organisation over chaos, and certainty over ignorance.
Click to expand...

I don’t think Israel wanted war with the US when they attacked the Liberty. They just knew they could get away with it without any consequences–which they did.

Ditto the anthrax attacks.
 
MaGZ said:
I don’t think Israel wanted war with the US when they attacked the Liberty. They just knew they could get away with it without any consequences–which they did.

Ditto the anthrax attacks.
Click to expand...
Really?
 
Par said:
Repeatedly posting sneering comments is all very well and good, but do you actually have any reason to believe that it wasn’t just a misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

The survivors of the Liberty know it was a deliberate attack.
You are familiar with the book Assault on the Liberty by James M. Ennes Jr. ?
 
Darth Rotor said:
WIldcat's is a plausible explanation. The Israeli government never "opened the kimono" with a full disclosure, there was the matter of the IAF pilot who changed his story, and if you read the Ennis' book, the numerous attack runs were close enough for the pilots to see an American flag. (I have photo rigged ships from a similar distance, and I can tell you from first hand experience, flags are discernable with the unaided eye.
Click to expand...



There's debate over what flag the USS Liberty was flying at the commencement of the attacks.

I don't know which IAF pilot you're referring to, but one of the people who allegedly came forward claiming to be an IAF pilot who was court martialled for refusing to attack the Liberty has since denied ever making this claim, and records suggest he was never a pilot in the IAF at all.

-Gumboot
 
MaGZ said:
The survivors of the Liberty know it was a deliberate attack.
You are familiar with the book Assault on the Liberty by James M. Ennes Jr. ?
Click to expand...


The survivors (including Ennes) can't possibly know that. Many of them believe it, but their belief does not constititute any kind of proof.
 
The Liberty is old, sad stuff, MagGZ.

I want to hear all about those anthrax attacks.
 
sackett said:
The Liberty is old, sad stuff, MagGZ.

I want to hear all about those anthrax attacks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you want to hear all about those anthrax attacks.

But here it is, anyway.

You will note that (as usual) MaGZ doesn't provide the slightest evidence, just the usual "Israel did it because ... well, because they did it".
 
Firestone said:
I'm not sure you want to hear all about those anthrax attacks.

But here it is, anyway.

You will note that (as usual) MaGZ doesn't provide the slightest evidence, just the usual "Israel did it because ... well, because they did it".
Click to expand...

I just had to ask, didn't I? Ugh.

So: After all those refutations, MaGZ still maintains that teh juize mailed the anthrax. For him, it's an ironclad cinch; no more facts needed; case closed; QED.

MaGZ: Now tell us about Hugh of Lincoln.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom