Israel's attack on the USS Liberty...

[a_unique_person]

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?

I think the link has a different definition of what constitutes a congressional investigation to you. Either way, it appears to claim that investigations by the US were nobbled. Like I said before, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was enough to start a full blown war, and nothing even happened in that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: 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

Evidence? All I can remember is you disappearing when it became clear I had evidence to counter your claims. JREF used to be a cosy little club of uncritical supporters of Israel. No longer.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

One thing I don't understand is why so many liberals and Marxists have a problem with Israel. I mean aren't they a semi-socialist nation(democratic-socalist I believe)? Or in any event, way more socialistic then their Arab neighbors (who are either Monarchist or Theocratic)? It really does not make sense to me. My only thought is they oppose Israel just to oppose the conervatives and America as an end in itself.

 

[renata]

I think the link has a different definition of what constitutes a congressional investigation to you. Either way, it appears to claim that investigations by the US were nobbled. Like I said before, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was enough to start a full blown war, and nothing even happened in that.

OK, can you define congressional investigation for me please? Because I thought Senate and House investigations were Congressional investigations. How do you define them? You said there were no high level inquiries. Ssibal has links showing inquiries from, among others:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
CIA
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Armed Services Committee
House Appropriations Committee
House Armed Services Committee
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
National Security Agency
House Armed Services Committee


Most of those inquiries concluded that the attack was at worst "gross negligence" but no inquiry found premeditation. With the release of the transcripts, that seems to support the findings.

Who did you think should have conducted the high level inquiries?
How do you define "official high level inquiry"
Who "nobbled" all these investigations?
Have you read the transcripts, previously linked and quoted?
Do you agree that the Israeli pilots believe this was an Egyptian ship?
Does that change any of your prior beliefs about this incident?


You actually did not say "nothing even happened in that" You said, like I quoted you before

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.

If these inquiries concluded that is was an accident or even "gross negligence", what should have happened, in your opinion?

 

[a_unique_person]

One thing I don't understand is why so many liberals and Marxists have a problem with Israel. I mean aren't they a semi-socialist nation(democratic-socalist I believe)? Or in any event, way more socialistic then their Arab neighbors (who are either Monarchist or Theocratic)? It really does not make sense to me. My only thought is they oppose Israel just to oppose the conervatives and America as an end in itself.

I think that for some, it is just another way of opposing the US. However, I am neither a Marxist or extreme leftist.

(Once, when I realised you had to be a member of a faction in the Australian Labor Party to get anywhere in it, I asked a member of the Socialist Left faction what you had to do to join it, I was told you couldn't just join it, you had to be committed to the cause. I nearly laughed in their face. I didn't want to join the right wing faction because they seemed to like wearing suits and ties).

Nope, it's just like the story of the guy in the Land Theft Thread that motivates me. And being lied to, I used to be a supporter of Israel.

 

[a_unique_person]

OK, can you define congressional investigation for me please? Because I thought Senate and House investigations were Congressional investigations. How do you define them? You said there were no high level inquiries. Ssibal has links showing inquiries from, among others:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry
CIA
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Armed Services Committee
House Appropriations Committee
House Armed Services Committee
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
National Security Agency
House Armed Services Committee


Most of those inquiries concluded that the attack was at worst "gross negligence" but no inquiry found premeditation. With the release of the transcripts, that seems to support the findings.

Who did you think should have conducted the high level inquiries?
How do you define "official high level inquiry"
Who "nobbled" all these investigations?
Have you read the transcripts, previously linked and quoted?
Do you agree that the Israeli pilots believe this was an Egyptian ship?
Does that change any of your prior beliefs about this incident?


You actually did not say "nothing even happened in that" You said, like I quoted you before


If these inquiries concluded that is was an accident or even "gross negligence", what should have happened, in your opinion?

A case of my extending a claim based on poor recall, "No congressional investigation" became " No high level inquiry".

Court Martial at the least, of whoever was responsible.

I did not say I believed they were all nobbled, but the web page makes those claims. I do not think I have ever claimed it was a definite case either way, but have stated that it is a contentious issue. As demon has said, the real issue is not the pilots, but those in control of them who should be providing transcripts.

The one thing that really does distinguish this even from other cases of friendly fire is that it was a sustained attack over several hours, including the shooting of people who were helpless. Other cases of friendly fire that have been referred to have all ben attacks that were halted very quickly.

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: AUP never changes his mind...

JREF used to be a cosy little club of uncritical supporters of Israel. No longer.

Unique. I think that you have the opportunity to do something really nice for JREF

Offer this sentence to Linda to host it to the Auctions forum.

JREF will make tones of money from people that they will die to use it as their signature!!

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: AUP never changes his mind...

Unique. I think that you have the opportunity to do something really nice for JREF

Offer this sentence to Linda to host it to the Auctions forum.

JREF will make tones of money from people that they will die to use it as their signature!!

It is good to see you haven't lost your faith in me yet. Thanks, Cleopatra.

 

[Cleopatra]

It's good for me to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor Unique

 

[crocodile deathroll]

In the case of the USS Liberty I will give the Israelis the benifit of the doubt. There was no malice intent, it was just a stupid millitary stuffup.
But the Israelis have not been lily white as they were the inventors of Terrorism as we know it today.

CDR

 

[Cleopatra]

In fact they learned how to plug bombs by the Europeans that they were bombing their Synagogues.

 

[a_unique_person]

In the case of the USS Liberty I will give the Israelis the benifit of the doubt. There was no malice intent, it was just a stupid millitary stuffup.
But the Israelis have not been lily white as they were the inventors of Terrorism as we know it today.

CDR

I don't know if you could say they invented it as we know it today. Terrorism has been around much longer than that.

 

[Malachi151]

One thing I don't understand is why so many liberals and Marxists have a problem with Israel. I mean aren't they a semi-socialist nation(democratic-socalist I believe)? Or in any event, way more socialistic then their Arab neighbors (who are either Monarchist or Theocratic)? It really does not make sense to me. My only thought is they oppose Israel just to oppose the conervatives and America as an end in itself.

WTF, why do people keep saying "liberals have a problem with Israel"?

I'll tell you who does NOT have a problem with Israel, and that is Christian Fundamentalists, and that si because they think that Israel is some link to their own scriptures and a part of End Times prophesy, and because of that it does not matter what the Israelis do, they will be on their side no matter what.

Who does have a problem with Israel, anyone who thinks critically. If you care about human rights and fairness and justice and you don't like conflict then you have a problem with Israel!

Yes Israel is a Social Democracy of sorts, but so what? Why should that matter? Do you think people put those types of ideologies above human life? Some people do, but any decent person does not.

Ask people on the streets, hardly anyone thinks that it is possible for there to be peace between Israel and the Arab nations. If its impossible for there to be peace, then what is the solution? If its impossible for there to be peace then doesn't it stand to reason that the world would be better off if Israel had never been formed?

I don't blame the Israelis for not wanting to give up and leave Israel, but let's face it, if they did the world would be a better place. Not that its their fault for the problem, but that's just a fact.

The only reason any of this is going on is because of religoius fanaticism in the first place, by both sides.

 

[JamesM]

The one thing that really does distinguish this even from other cases of friendly fire is that it was a sustained attack over several hours

Can you cite evidence for this? You can find the full transcript of the US Naval Court of Inquiry here, which should presumably contain information to back up your statement (the transcript is rather long, I'm afraid).

However, to cut to the chase, the testimony of Captain McGonagle in that document contradicts your claim. He was asked by the court of enquiry to

develop in conjunction with your ships officers and through
the assistance of any other assets available, such as your
engineer's bell book, the CIC log, recollections of ships
personnel the best available story, chronological in words
and pictorial on charts and whyfors what happened.

From his account, we find that the attack starts at:

1358 SINGLE A/C SIGHTED APPROACHING SHIP FROM 135 DEG
RELATIVE 5 - 6 MILES DISTANCE, ALTITUDE APPROXIMATELY
7000 FT. A/C PASSED DOWN TRACK OF SHIP

as the next entry is:

1403 LOUD EXPLOSION - PORT SIDE AMIDSHIPS

The attack ends at:

1503 ONE MTB RETURNED TO SHIP AND SIGNALLED "DO YOU NEED
HELP" IN ENGLISH C.O. SIGNALLED "NEGATIVE"

So that's from 1358 to 1503 - 65 minutes maximum. Not 'several', is it? To be fair, the false claim about several hours is repeated across the web.

 

[a_unique_person]

Another view, which may explain why the incident has been shrouded in so much confusion and doubt. Israel did not want to admit it had been practicing for war a 'defensive' war of attack.

http://www.ariga.com/peacebiz/edits/liberty.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

From a survivor

http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2003-June/000499.html

 

[a_unique_person]

Claiming a pilot knew that he was attacking a ship with an American flag. When he refused, he was arrested on his return to base.

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

 

[a_unique_person]

So that's from 1358 to 1503 - 65 minutes maximum. Not 'several', is it? To be fair, the false claim about several hours is repeated across the web.

The 'several hours' apparently refers to the time since the ship was first contacted by surveillance aircraft, to the attack. That is, time from first observation.

 

[JamesM]

Claiming a pilot knew that he was attacking a ship with an American flag. When he refused, he was arrested on his return to base.

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

That's the same article (and the same URL!) that demon posted earlier. I have discussed these points in a post on the first page.

 

[JamesM]

The 'several hours' apparently refers to the time since the ship was first contacted by surveillance aircraft, to the attack. That is, time from first observation.

In which case, it wasn't a "sustained attack over several hours".