Israel's attack on the USS Liberty...

Malachi151:
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.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...the US used napalm extensively in Vietnam and the napalm-like MK-77 firebombs in Iraq.
 
demon said:
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.
Click to expand...
The pilot's name is Amnon Tavni. When Adrian Pennink was making the Thames TV documentary on the Liberty incident, he contacted Tavni, who denied making the statement. Additionally, the IDF had no record of Tavni as a pilot, or indeed in any branch of the IDF. But they probably would say that, wouldn't they?

My source for the above comes from A Jay Cristol's recent book on the subject, so I can't provide a link, I'm afraid.


Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report.
Click to expand...
The major in question is Seth Mintz, who claimed to be in the war room with General Benni Matti. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Mintz was in the war room, and no evidence that Benni Matti even exists. Mintz states that Moshe Dayan gave the order for the attack, but Cristol shows that Dayan was not in the war room (and was out of radio contact) on the day and time in question - there are photographs taken by a Life photographer (with watches in shot) that show this.

Additionally, Mintz denied to the New York Times that he had ever said that they knew they were attacking an American ship.

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.
Click to expand...
The problem with this (and all the people listed) is that this is based merely on their personal opinion, much of it informed by the likes of James Ennes. They know no more about the subject than we do.
 
Malachi151 said:



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!
Click to expand...

Japanese cargo vessels and tankers were legitimate targets in the eyes of the U.S. Navy during WWII; the Pacific sub fleet racked up quite a few tons' worth of these ships. In the same sense, Japanese civilian steel plants and oil refineries were legitimate targets. One of the objectives of many war or combat actions is to make your job easier by depriving the enemy of the means to make war. This means cutting off oil and supplies. It also means killing as much of a ship's crew as possible, so that they can't just repair the ship and get to their target port anyway.
 
Malachi151 said:

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!
Click to expand...

No. According to the Israeli account (which you are free to disregard), its speed was miscalculated and as a result it was assumed to be a warship and an airstrike was called in. After the napalm was dropped, it was identified as an Egyptian naval freighter. It was not assumed to be unarmed, however, as the Liberty had already opened fire on the torpedo boats before the identification.

I've never been in a war myself, but I think that the response of the torpedo boats (to fire back) is probably understandable, given that they were in the middle of a war and under fire.
 
JamesM said:


No. According to the Israeli account (which you are free to disregard), its speed was miscalculated and as a result it was assumed to be a warship and an airstrike was called in. After the napalm was dropped, it was identified as an Egyptian naval freighter. It was not assumed to be unarmed, however, as the Liberty had already opened fire on the torpedo boats before the identification.

I've never been in a war myself, but I think that the response of the torpedo boats (to fire back) is probably understandable, given that they were in the middle of a war and under fire.
Click to expand...

The torpoedo boats could easily have simply stayed out of range of them. The boats just were going in for a closer look to see if there were survivors and access damage. They saw that people were still alive, so they decided to keep firing at the ship.
 
Liberty vs Egyptian Cargo ship

samosamo.gif


USS Liberty:

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/COI/sample/Differences.html

1. At all times on June 8, 1967, during the fourth day of the
Arab-Israeli "Six Day War," USS Liberty, a neutral ship, remained in
international waters.



2. USS Liberty carried no offensive armament and only four .50 cal.
machine guns as a defense against boarders.



3. On the morning of June 8, 1967 USS Liberty was over flown by
Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, and POSITIVELY identified by an
Israeli pilot not just as a U.S. Navy ship, but as USS Liberty
specifically.



4. The Hague Convention on Naval Warfare prohibits attacks on
neutral ships on the high seas.



5. The government of Israel stated that they ordered ships and
aircraft to the location of USS Liberty because they had received
reports that IDF forces on the shore were being shelled from the sea.



6. The Israeli motor torpedo boats (MTBs) claimed to have detected
USS Liberty on their radar initially at a distance of approximately
28 miles. The maximum range of the MTB radar units was just 16 miles.



7. The MTBs calculated the speed of USS Liberty initially at 30
knots and then a few minutes later at 28 knots. The maximum speed of
USS Liberty was 20 knots, and the ship was at that time barely making
way at five knots.



8. The Israeli aircraft, which should have been looking for a ship
with offensive armament with sufficient range to bombard the shore 15
miles away and traveling at high speed, instead found a converted
cargo ship, with no offensive armament, and moving at approximately
five knots.



9. USS Liberty presented no obvious offensive threat, nor was she
attempting to flee the scene. Indeed, US sailors were sunbathing on
the deck.



10. Prior to the start of the attack (1358 local time), USS Liberty -
still in international waters - was never positively identified as a
hostile ship.





11. Rather than wait for the MTBs to arrive and positively ID the
ship, the aircraft launched an attack on USS Liberty.



12. The pilots of the attacking aircraft claimed that they were
unable to see the 5' by 8' red, white, and blue US flag flying
approximately 100 feet above the bridge of the ship, yet one of the
pilots stated that he saw a .50 cal machine gun, painted gray, on the
deck.



13. The Israelis claim that the aircraft finally saw a U.S. flag on
Liberty at approximately 1422 and they called off the attack.



14. At 1436, the MTBs launched a torpedo attack on USS Liberty,
launching five torpedoes, one of which hit USS Liberty amidships,
killing 25 men.



15. The MTBs continued to circle USS Liberty, firing on the ship
until at least 1510, when they claim that they saw Liberty's US flag
for the first time.



16. The Israeli attack was broken off almost immediately following
an unencrypted broadcast by USS Saratoga that she had launched
aircraft to come to the aid of Liberty.





The Israeli government has never explained why it was necessary to
attack an unthreatening ship on the high seas without waiting a few
more minutes until their surface ships arrived to positively identify
it. This was a gross violation of the laws of war. There is simply no
rational explanation for the attack having been anything other than
planned and deliberate.



Reference was made to Mr. Cristol's website www.libertyincident.com.
When visiting this site, please keep in mind that while Mr. Cristol
traveled to Israel 15 times to interview IDF personnel, he had only
brief conversations with a few USS Liberty survivors. He has claimed
to have interviewed quite a few individuals who dispute that they
were ever interviewed by Cristol. The facts alleged on Cristol's
website are often contradictory.



One of the individuals who disputes ever having been interviewed by
Cristol about the attack on USS Liberty, is Captain Ward Boston, the
JAG officer for the court of inquiry. He has recently broken his
silence on this subject. In a recent published interview, Captain
Boston contradicted Cristol's claims of comments attributed to
Admiral Isaac Kidd and stated that Kidd has opined to him that he
thought that Cristol was "an Israeli agent."



Also bear in mind Cristol's somewhat misleading biography, which
suggests that he was a combat pilot during the Korean war (he
wasn't).
Click to expand...

This goes back to what I was saying. Its irrelevant to a point because the fact is that even if it had been an Egyptian cargo ship they STILL would have been in volation of the internationally agreed upon ruled of engagement. Thats WHY we have these rules in the first place, to PREVENT "accidents" like this.

They were at fault no matter what for doing something that was wrong.
 
Malachi151 said:

The torpoedo boats could easily have simply stayed out of range of them.
Click to expand...
Why would they do that? They were under attack from what they thought was an enemy ship


The boats just were going in for a closer look to see if there were survivors and access damage. They saw that people were still alive, so they decided to keep firing at the ship.
Click to expand...
Any evidence for this?
 
Quote from the Miami Herald:

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

Who did they get to fill in the blanks? Sylvia Browne? John Edward? Ariel Sharon?

So, in your view, it makes sense to believe that the NSA tapes actually "condemn" israel, despite the fact that evetrything there supports the idea that it was a mistake, because the tapes did not record EVERYTHING that happened, and since the eeeeeeevil jooooooos control the NSA, it "filled in the blanks" in the story in a way that makes the eeeeeeeeeevil joooooooos look good.

Of course, your "theory" makes SO much more sense than the much simpler claim--that (duh) the recording devices' data, as usually is the case, is not 100% complete and did not hear and/or record EVERYTHING that went on, requiring interpretation--due to the fact that some things are outside their range, or they cannot record the thoughts of those involved, or what happened when they were turned off, etc.

Virtually EVERY event caught on camera and/or recorded requires filling in the blanks. Look at your home movies: in one moment, your wife is in the frame... then she isn't... then she is again! Amazing! Of course, you will say that "she went to the kitchen". C'mon, are we really supposed to believe THAT story about how these "blanks" in her recording occured? Did you get that knowledge from Sylvia Browne? Can you prove she was NOT abducted by scummy zionist agents and replaced by a clone??? Filling in the blanks--Priceless! :roll:

You, like many others, will believe absolutely anything as long as it makes the eeeeeeeeeeeevil joooooooooooos look bad. But wait, don't tell me: you are "not an antisemite, just an anti-zionist". Sure. After all, whatever makes us think it is antisemitic to invent a nonsensical conspiracy theory out of thin air, solely in order to "convict" the jewish state of things it never did?
 

Any evidence for this?

Haven't you learned anything, James? When it comes to blaming the jews, you don't need no stinkin' evidence. "I read it somewhere" or "I think" is quite sufficient proof.
 
demon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Demon, the claim is that Israel knew it was a U.S. ship and attacked it for whatever reason, this tape supports the position that the Israelis did not know it was a U.S. ship. If you are going to attack the authenticity of the tapes then you need to provide better evidence than it is a "crock idea" that "Israel is honest in it's dealings with the world" or that the "Israeli Zionazis" are "masters of manipulation, lying and special pleading."
 
Skeptic said:

Any evidence for this?

Haven't you learned anything, James? When it comes to blaming the jews, you don't need no stinkin' evidence. "I read it somewhere" or "I think" is quite sufficient proof.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, James is not an ideologue like yourself. He has made several valid points in this and other threads, and is merely trying to think for himself and make up his own mind, as does Cleopatra.

I have no doubt there will be many points that we disagree upon, but I respect these two forum members. When they write something, I usually think about it. When you post, I can usually disregard it without having to waste any time on serious consideration.
 
I've just read through the thread and I have to say a few things here for both sides of the story.

First of all, I don't see the tapes proving or disproving anything. They're simply conversations of two pilots and their controllers. Saying the tapes clearly prove Israeli forces didn't know the ship was American is wrong, since the tapes do no such thing. All we have is two pilots talking to the ground controller. In order to know whether Israel knew or didn't know we'd have to gain access to all top level communications which happened on the day. Best we can do is say the tapes are inconclusive (there are some indications that controller may have known the ship was American and there are indications that the controller didn't know whether the ship was egyptian or not). We're not going to find out whether the act was deliberate or not by shouting at each other and presenting snippets of information labelled as "evidence".

Second of all, we're arguing over a past event, that even if it was a deliberate act, would have been done so by past administration (or people in charge). In no way does the incident reflect the current policy/feelings of Israel towards America. Last time I checked Israel and America are allies. Last time I checked Israel is a democracy.

Bottom line - it should be noted that the actions were done by past leadership, if they were deliberate they in no way reflect the attitude of current leadership.
 
Bump

AUP, have you looked at the high level inquiries yet? Have you read the transcripts yet? Have ssibal's links showing your errors in your assumptions made your change your mind on the incident?
 
Evil Renata I love you :)

Well, Unique, she is right. To the other thread you insisted on our accepting that Israel was stealing land....
 
If it weren't a mistake, I think the nation of "Palastine" would now exist on a radioactive piece of land we turned to glass.
 
I had been reading this page http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

There has NEVER been a congressional investigation. There HAS been a NAVY-controlled white-washed investigation of the crew's actions during the attack, but Israel's participation was NOT covered. Even in this, evidence was changed, and officers and crew who knew the answers were not asked the right questions and were told to shut up when they offered information. And now, in 2002, retired Navy captain Ward Boston, one of the Navy's chief legal counsels reporting to Adm. Kidd, who conducted the Navy's inquiry, now says that the Navy inquiry was a sham and a fraud and both he and Adm. Kidd knew that the attack was not an accident but deliberate
Click to expand...

The IDF inquiry I would totally disregard. As Skeptic has pointed out, they have never found evidence of illegal activity by the IDF.
 
a_unique_person said:
I had been reading this page http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/



The IDF inquiry I would totally disregard. As Skeptic has pointed out, they have never found evidence of illegal activity by the IDF.
Click to expand...

Wow...a webpage with a soundtrack. It must be true.

What about those inquiries listed in ssibals link? Do you think they never existed? Are they not congressional investigations?
 
AUP never changes his mind...

In the face of evidence...

Even JK has done so in the past. I think a_unique_person is just far more extreme than Jedi Knight was.

-Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom