• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Israel's attack on the USS Liberty...

ssibal

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

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9644&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

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

AUP did answer after my post, saying

It is worth comparing this to the Gulf of Tonkin. An attack that never happened was enough to cause a full blown war. When a US ship is directly attacked, there is not even an official high level inquiry.

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

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

Not likely. He seems to have little interest in actually finding out the truth when it comes to Israel. In another thread, he posted the claim that Israel had used some kind of nerve gas on an attack against Palestinians. Didn't take me long to prove that the claim was full of crap, and he kind of conceded the point, but he obviously had no interest in finding out the truth himself before he posted. :(
 
Those Israelis are just soooo damn sneaky. They managed to switch the authentic tapes showing their deliberate massacring of our boys with fakes that exhonorated the them.
 
Not likely. He seems to have little interest in actually finding out the truth when it comes to Israel.

Or jews in general, for that matter.

They're EVIL, Batman, I tell ya!
 
crackmonkey said:
Those Israelis are just soooo damn sneaky. .


That's cuz the're JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWSSSSS

Just ask AUP
 
renata said:
This was discussed before here

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9644&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

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

AUP did answer after my post, saying



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

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

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

Nice attempt to divert from my other thread, though.
 
While I agree that it was a mistake there is still much to be critical of, mostly with the way that it was handled.

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

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

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

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

So, the reasons for suspician are many.

I don't think it was intentional, but I also don't think that suspicion that it was intentional is beyond reason at all.
 
Quote from the Miami Herald:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Nice attempt to divert from my other thread, though.

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

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty2.html
Formatting is a little messed up, check the link.
Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
June 10-18, 1967
The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.
CIA Report
June 13, 1967
The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report)
June 9-20, 1967
Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.
Clifford Report July 18, 1967
No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence."
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967
Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.
Senate Armed Services Committee
Feb. 1, 1968
No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.
House Appropriations Committee
April-May 1968
Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.
House Armed Services Committee
May 10, 1971
Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
1979
Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.
National Security Agency
1981
Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.
House Armed Services Committee
June 1991
Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.
 
demon said:
Quote from the Miami Herald:

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

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

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

So what are you saying, that the NSA is under the control of Israel? Get real! Are you going to reject the actual recordings because the NSA wrote a summary pieced from various sources?
 
Joshua Korosi said:
It's anecdote against evidence. Swearing to hell and back that the Liberty was flying an American flag that was so big that the Israelis must've seen it, that the vessel's shape was singular, or that the aircraft made several passes before firing (and thus should've identified the ship) is all compelling anecdote until the radio tapes come through, which indicate that the pilots didn't identify the ship as American until it was severely damaged. In that case, no matter how the ship looked, or which flag it flew, or how easily the pilots should've identified it...the radio transcripts indicate they didn't. That's it - case closed. That's what application of the Method of Skepticism leads to.

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

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

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


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

Is that disputed? Israel has formally apologized for the mistake. There's not much more that can reasonably be done.
 
"So what are you saying, that the NSA is under the control of Israel? Get real! Are you going to reject the actual recordings because the NSA wrote a summary pieced from various sources?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa16jul16,0,2595145.story?coll=bal-nation-storyutil
 
Malachi151 said:
I don't think it was intentional, but I also don't think that suspicion that it was intentional is beyond reason at all.

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

I expected that you Malachi would criticize such an attitude.

What so ever, this gives me an idea for a new thread about another famous incident of defamation of Israel by the Arabs and their friends in the Media.
 
From the sunspot article:
"If they knew it was an Egyptian ship, why did they think the crew might speak English?" Bamford asks.
Because only after the attack by the planes, Latin characters were spotted on the hull by one of the pilots, leading them to think a mistake had been made. The air force attack was called off, the naval attack was not, due to a communications breakdown.

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

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


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

I expected that you Malachi would criticize such an attitude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore think about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.

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

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

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

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

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

Back
Top Bottom